Trust and Transparency in times of Crisis: Results from an Online Survey During the First Wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 Epidemic in the UK

Enria, L.; Waterlow, N.; Rogers, N. T.; Brindle, H.; Lal, S.; Eggo, R. M.; Lees, S.; Roberts, C. h.

Background: The success of government COVID-19 control strategies relies on public trust and broad acceptance of response measures. We investigated public perceptions of the UK government COVID-19 response, focusing on the relationship between trust and transparency, during the first wave (April 2020) of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United Kingdom. Methods: Anonymous survey data were collected (2020-04-06 to 2020-04-22) from 9,322 respondents, aged 20+ using an online questionnaire. We took a mixed methods approach to data analysis, combining statistical analyses, structural topic modelling (STM) and qualitative thematic coding of a sub-set of responses. Missing data were imputed via multiple imputation. Results: Most respondents (95.1%) supported government enforcement of behaviour change. While 52.1% of respondents thought the government was making good decisions, differences were apparent across demographic groups, for example respondents from Scotland had lower odds of responding positively than respondents in London. Higher educational levels saw decreasing odds of having a positive opinion of the government response and decreasing household income associated with decreasing positive opinion. Of respondents who thought the government was not making good decisions 60% believed the economy was being prioritised over people and their health. Positive views on government decision-making were associated with positive views on government transparency about the COVID-19 response. Qualitative analysis about government transparency highlighted five key themes: (1) the justification of opacity due to the condition of crisis, (2) generalised mistrust of politics, (3) concerns about the role of scientific evidence, (4) quality of government communication and (5) questions about political decision-making processes. Conclusion: We recommend targeted community engagement tailored to different groups experiences and a focus on accountability and openness around how decisions are made in the response to the UK COVID-19 pandemic.