In the original article, there was an error. The incorrect adjusted odds ratio was included in the abstract for the association between fact-checking and delay.
A correction has been made to Abstract, Results, 1:
The incorrect text stated: Results: Of 4,551 respondents (46.5% male, 59.7% aged over 45 years), 10.1% reported delay in doctor consultation. The mean score was 6.4 for fear, 8.0 for attention and 7.4 for fact-checking. Delay was more common in males and increased with age and fear. High vs. low level of fear was associated with delay [adjusted odd ratios (AOR) 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08, 3.47]. Moderate level of fact-checking was negatively associated with delay (AOR 1.28, 95% CI 0.98, 1.67). Females reported greater fear and fear decreased with age. Fear increased with attention to information and decreased with fact-checking. Fear substantially mediated the association of delay with attention (96%) and fact-checking (30%).
The corrected text appears below:
Of 4,551 respondents (46.5% male, 59.7% aged over 45 years), 10.1% reported delay in doctor consultation. The mean score was 6.4 for fear, 8.0 for attention and 7.4 for fact-checking. Delay was more common in males and increased with age and fear. High vs. low level of fear was associated with delay [adjusted odd ratios (AOR) 2.68, 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.08, 3.47]. Moderate level of fact-checking was negatively associated with delay (AOR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56, 0.92). Females reported greater fear and fear decreased with age. Fear increased with attention to information and decreased with fact-checking. Fear substantially mediated the association of delay with attention (96%) and fact-checking (30%).
The authors apologize for this error and state that this does not change the scientific conclusions of the article in any way. The original article has been updated.
Publisher's Note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Summary
Keywords
COVID-19, coronavirus, infodemic, infodemiology, delay in doctor consultation, patient delay, public health, information and communication technologies
Citation
Lai AY-K, Sit SM-M, Wu SY-D, Wang M-P, Wong BY-M, Ho S-Y and Lam T-H (2022) Corrigendum: Associations of Delay in Doctor Consultation With COVID-19 Related Fear, Attention to Information, and Fact-Checking. Front. Public Health 10:847603. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.847603
Received
03 January 2022
Accepted
18 January 2022
Published
10 February 2022
Volume
10 - 2022
Edited by
Simon Ching Lam, Tung Wah College, Hong Kong, SAR China
Reviewed by
Marques Shek Nam Ng, The Chinese University of Hong Kong, China; Hilda Ho, Children's Hospital of Orange County, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2022 Lai, Sit, Wu, Wang, Wong, Ho and Lam.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sai-Yin Ho syho@hku.hk
†These authors share first authorship
This article was submitted to Public Mental Health, a section of the journal Frontiers in Public Health
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.