"R" you getting this? Factors contributing to the public's understanding, evaluation, and use of basic reproduction numbers for infectious diseases.

BACKGROUND: We (1) examined the effects of evaluative labels and visual aids on people's understanding, evaluation, and use of the COVID-19 reproduction number (or "r-number"), (2) examined whether people's perceived susceptibility and (intended) adherence to preventive measures changed after being exposed to the r-number, and (3) explored whether these effects and changes depended on people's numeracy skills. METHODS: In an online experiment, participants from a large Dutch representative sample (N = 1,168) received information about the COVID-19 r-number displayed on the corona dashboard of the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport. The r-number was either presented with or without a categorical line display (i.e., evaluative label) and with or without an icon-based tree diagram (i.e., visual aid) explaining how the number works. Regarding people's use of the statistic, we measured perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 and adherence (intention) to five preventive measures before and after exposure to the r-number. After exposure, we also measured participants' understanding, perceived usefulness, affective and cognitive evaluation, and objective numeracy. RESULTS: About 56% of participants correctly interpreted the r-number, with highly numerate people having better understanding than less numerate people. Information about the r-number was perceived as more useful when presented with a visual aid. There were no differences across experimental conditions in people's understanding, affective, and cognitive evaluations. Finally, independent of experimental conditions, intention to adhere to preventive measures was higher after seeing the r-number, but only among highly numerate people. CONCLUSIONS: Although evaluative labels and visual aids did not facilitate people's understanding and evaluation of the r-number, our results show that the statistic is perceived as useful and may be used to stimulate adherence to preventive measures. Policy makers and public health communicators are advised to clearly explain why they are giving these numbers to - especially - the less numerate people, but also how people could use them for behavior change to combat the spread of virus during a pandemic.

What do we not know (yet) about recovery colleges? A study protocol on their (cost-)effectiveness, mechanisms of action, fidelity and positioning.

BACKGROUND: Recovery Colleges (RCs) have spread across the globe as a new way of supporting people with mental vulnerabilities in their recovery journey. RCs focus on 'learning' rather than 'curing' and in that line facilitate a transition from being a passive, dependent patient/client to an active, empowered student learning to live life, despite vulnerabilities. Peer support and co-creation are central in RCs, as peers learn from each other by sharing personal experiences with mental vulnerabilities in an accessible, inspiring and stimulating atmosphere. The implementation of RCs is highly encouraged internationally, and as a result RCs and related self-help initiatives increasingly emerge. However, high-quality research on RCs is scarce and there is a call for thorough investigation of (cost-)effectiveness, mechanisms of action, cross-border fidelity and positioning of RCs. In response, this research project aims to fill these gaps. METHODS: This research project entails (1) a prospective quasi-experimental effectiveness study and economic evaluation, (2) a multifaceted qualitative study to elaborate on the mechanisms of action of RCs for those involved (3) a study to develop a (Dutch) Fidelity Measure of Recovery Colleges, and (4) an organisational case study to describe the positioning of RCs in relation to other mental health care services and community-based initiatives. Following the ideals of co-creation and empowerment in RCs we conduct this research project in co-creation with RC students from Enik Recovery College in Utrecht, the Netherlands. DISCUSSION: This research project will lead to one of the first longitudinal controlled quantitative evaluations of both cost-effectiveness and effectiveness of RC attendance in a broad sense (beyond attending courses alone). Moreover, we will gather data on a micro level (i.e., impact on RC students), meso level (i.e., organisational fidelity) and macro level (i.e., positioning in the care and support domain), capturing all important perspectives when scrutinizing the impact of complex systems. Finally, we will demonstrate the validity and value of embracing experiential knowledge in science as a complementary source of information, leading to a more profound understanding of what is researched. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The prospective quasi-experimental study has been pre-registered at clinicaltrails.gov (#NCT05620212).

Does a 7-day restriction on the use of social media improve cognitive functioning and emotional well-being? Results from a randomized controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Screen time apps that allow smartphone users to manage their screen time are assumed to combat negative effects of smartphone use. This study explores whether a social media restriction, implemented via screen time apps, has a positive effect on emotional well-being and sustained attention performance. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (N = 76) was performed, exploring whether a week-long 50% reduction in time spent on mobile Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and YouTube is beneficial to attentional performance and well-being as compared to a 10% reduction. RESULTS: Unexpectedly, several participants in the control group pro-actively reduced their screen time significantly beyond the intended 10%, dismantling our intended screen time manipulation. Hence, we analyzed both the effect of the original manipulation (i.e. treatment-as-intended), and the effect of participants' relative reduction in screen time irrespective of their condition (i.e. treatment-as-is). Neither analyses revealed an effect on the outcome measures. We also found no support for a moderating role of self-control, impulsivity or Fear of Missing Out. Interestingly, across all participants behavioral performance on sustained attention tasks remained stable over time, while perceived attentional performance improved. Participants also self-reported a decrease in negative emotions, but no increase in positive emotions. CONCLUSION: We discuss the implications of our findings in light of recent debates about the impact of screen time and formulate suggestions for future research based on important limitations of the current study, revolving among others around appropriate control groups as well as the combined use of both subjective and objective (i.e., behavioral) measures.