Social inequalities in the misbelief of chloroquine’s protective effect against COVID-19: results from the EPICOVID-19 study in Brazil

Bruno Pereira Nunes; Inácio Crochemore-Silva; Grégore I. Mielke; Luis Paulo Vidaletti; Marilia Arndt Mesenburg; Mariangela Freitas da Silveira; Pedro C. Hallal

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0341666

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the dissemination of anti-science messages regarding COVID-19 in Brazil, specifically examining how social inequalities contributed to the misconception that chloroquine has a protective effect against the virus.

Study design

Three countrywide population-based studies were conducted in 2020 (May 14–21, June 4–7, and June 21–24), including 133 Brazilian cities (N = 74,077).

Methods

Participants (≥20 years old) were asked whether they believed in chloroquine’s protective effect against infection with the SARS-CoV-2 virus (no/yes/don’t know). “Yes” and “don’t know” answers were considered misconceptions (effect of denialism). A jeopardy index score was calculated to assess cumulative social deprivation based on sex, race and ethnicity, and socioeconomic variables. Descriptive analysis and inequality measures (Slope Index of Inequality – SII; and Concentration Index) were used to evaluate the association between believing in chloroquine’s protective effect against COVID-19 and the jeopardy index. Multinomial logistic regression was used in the unadjusted and multivariable analysis.

Results

Overall, 47.6% of participants either believed that chloroquine prevented COVID-19 or stated, “I don’t know.” Marginalized racial and ethnicity groups, those with low education level, and those with low socioeconomic status were more likely to erroneously believe that chloroquine prevented COVID-19. The chance of lack of knowledge (Don’t know) was higher (Odds Ratio: 2.57,CI95% 2.21; 2.99) among women, Black/Brown/East Asian/Indigenous, and among those in the lowest education level and wealth quartiles compared to men, white individuals, and those in the highest education and wealth quartiles. Absolute and relative inequalities were observed according to the jeopardy index. The highest absolute inequality was observed for the category “I don’t know” (SII = −15.1).

Conclusions

Misbelief in chloroquine’s protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 was high in Brazil. People with greater social vulnerability were more likely to wrongly believe that chloroquine prevented COVID-19.

Citation: Nunes BP, Crochemore-Silva I, Mielke GI, Vidaletti LP, Mesenburg MA, da Silveira MF, et al. (2026) Social inequalities in the misbelief of chloroquine’s protective effect against COVID-19: results from the EPICOVID-19 study in Brazil. PLoS One 21(3): e0341666. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666

Editor: Ivan Filipe de Almeida Lopes Fernandes, Federal University of the ABC: Universidade Federal do ABC, BRAZIL

Received: June 23, 2025; Accepted: January 10, 2026; Published: March 23, 2026

Copyright: © 2026 Nunes et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: The EPICOVID19 datasets are freely available online at https://epidemio-ufpel.org.br/epicovid/. All other relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding: The study was funded by the Brazilian Ministry of Health (TED 012/2020 SAPS), Instituto Serrapilheira (2980-7), Brazilian Collective Health Association (S/N), and JBS Fazer o Bem Faz Bem (S/N). The funders have no role in the study design, data collection and analysis, interpretation of findings, or manuscript writing.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has had several negative consequences for the global population [1,2]. The most striking impact was the high avoidable mortality caused by inadequate management of the SARS-CoV-2 virus spread. Brazil holds the second-highest number of confirmed COVID-19 deaths (702,421; May 2023), with a mortality rate of over 330 deaths per 100,000 inhabitants. Despite representing 2.7% of the world population, the country accounts for 10.5% of the COVID-19 mortality as of September 2022 [3]. In addition, mortality was unequally distributed in the population [4–6]. The higher mortality among the most vulnerable individuals also worsened the ability of families to maintain and guarantee a family budget sufficient for dignified survival, increasing, for example, food insecurity [7]. In addition to population health issues, there was a deepening of social inequalities [8,9].

Inadequate pandemic management is related to scientific denialism [10], as observed in Brazil [11,12]. Throughout the pandemic, the former Brazilian president (in office 2019−2022) undertook actions that undermined science, including disputes with state governors over political party affiliations, the relativization of the magnitude and severity of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and the creation of a dichotomy between public health and economics. Even more severe was the strategy of denying scientific consensus, the delay in purchasing vaccines, and the defense of medicines known to be ineffective for preventing and treating infection, such as chloroquine [13].

As a result, there was a strong emphasis on chloroquine as an effective treatment for SARS-CoV-2 infection, leading to an indiscriminate use of prescription by doctors. Unfortunately, the Federal Council of Medicine failed to ban off-label use of chloroquine for COVID-19. Such strategies and actions influenced the population’s perception of the protective effect of chloroquine in preventing and treating SARS-CoV-2 infection [11].

The complexity of information dissemination in society suggests that the effect and dissemination of fake news may not be limited to electorally aligned individuals [4]. Inequitable access to high-quality information, limited access to health services, and increased difficulties in daily life can exacerbate the effects of the spread of fake news about chloroquine, making it more widespread and sustained among the most vulnerable populations.

In this context, jeopardy analysis, based on the intersectionality theory [14], is a relevant approach for evaluating epidemiological health indicators to measure social inequity [15–18]. Earlier evidence suggests greater SARS-CoV-2 virus infection and mortality in contexts marked by inequalities [4,5,19], especially among Black, mixed, or Indigenous individuals and those with lower education and household asset levels [5,6,20,21]. The systemic effect of scientific denialism in Brazil appears to have a widespread impact on society as found for mortality [4,22]. Moreover, opinion surveys suggest that the favorable perception of chloroquine is more prevalent among individuals with lower educational levels [23,24].

This study aimed to assess the spread of denialist messages regarding COVID-19 in Brazil, specifically examining how social inequalities contributed to the misconception that chloroquine has a protective effect against the virus. We hypothesized that scientific denialism is more prevalent among individuals with greater social vulnerability.

Materials and methods

Data are from the EPICOVID-19 Brazil study, which includes three repeated seroprevalence studies conducted in 2020: 1) May 14^th to 21^st (n = 25,025); 2) June 4^th to 7^th (n = 31,165); and 3) June 21^st to 24^th (n = 33,207). Of these, 77,102 participants were 20 years or older. For each face-to-face survey, a three-stage probabilistic sample was selected (cities, urban census tracts, and households). Participants were tested for antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 using the WONDFO SARS-CoV-2 Antibody Test (Wondfo Biotech Co., Guangzhou, China), which detects the presence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 (IgG and IgM). Further methodological details are available elsewhere [20,25,26]. For the present study, 74,077 individuals aged ≥20 years or more with valid information for beliefs about COVID-19 and the main exposure (jeopardy index) were included in the analysis. This study complied with all ethical principles and legislation governing research involving human subjects and was approved by the National Research Ethics Commission (CAAE 30721520.7.1001.5313). All participants signed a written informed consent form.

The primary outcome assessed in this study was the percentage of the population holding the misconception that chloroquine protects against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. This was measured using the following question: “What do you believe offers protection against the coronavirus? [take chloroquine – no/yes/do not know].” In our study, responses of “yes” and “I do not know” were considered indicators of denialism during the pandemic due to the extensive dissemination of fake news and misinformation fueled by the President’s actions and speeches regarding the “efficacy” of chloroquine in preventing and treating COVID-19.

A jeopardy index score was calculated based on the aggregation of four sociodemographic variables that represent dimensions of social privilege: biological sex (male; female), self-reported race and ethnicity in five groups (“White” [Branco]; "Brown" [Pardo]; “Black” [Preto]; “East Asian” [Amarelo]; and “Indigenous” [Indígena]) following the official Brazilian classification of ethnicity, education level (incomplete elementary school; complete elementary school; complete high school; complete university degree); and wealth score (divided into quartiles), which was based on characteristics and assets of the household [27]. A composite jeopardy index score was created by assigning the most privileged group for each variable a score of zero (men, white, highest education, and highest socioeconomic position) and the least privileged group a score of one (women and Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous) or three (none or incomplete primary level of education and the lowest quartile of socioeconomic position). Therefore, for each variable, the following scores were assigned: sex (men = 0; women = 1); race and ethnicity (White = 0; Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous = 1); education (university graduate = 0; complete secondary or incomplete university = 1; complete primary or incomplete secondary = 2; none or incomplete primary = 3); socioeconomic position (top quartile = 0; 3rd quartile = 1; 2nd quartile = 2; bottom quartile = 3). The scores for each indicator were summed, resulting in a ‘Jeopardy Index’ ranging from 0 to 8. The index is lower for individuals with greater social privilege (or greater guarantee of human rights), which can also be interpreted as lower social vulnerability.

We conducted a descriptive analysis using prevalence and respective 95% confidence intervals (CI). The primary outcome (“believe in the protective effect of chloroquine against the SARS-CoV-2 virus”) was assessed based on the primary exposure (jeopardy index) and all the variables that comprised the index. We employed multinomial logistic regression models to evaluate the crude and adjusted odds ratios of belief (yes) and lack of knowledge (don’t know) regarding the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to each independent variable (sex, race and ethnicity, education level, and wealth), with all variables mutually considered in the adjusted model. Based on the jeopardy index, we evaluated the crude effect of belief (yes) and lack of knowledge (don’t know) regarding the protective effect of chloroquine against COVID-19.

Complex measures of inequality were calculated by using the Slope Index of Inequality (SII) and Concentration Index (CIX), with the jeopardy index as the exposure variable. The SII indicates the absolute difference in predicted values through logistic regression according to the jeopardy index. Therefore, it represents the absolute difference, in percentage points, between the estimated values for the extreme groups of the stratification variable. The deviation from linearity was assessed visually. The CIX assesses relative inequality, similar to the GINI index. Both indicators account for the entire distribution of the stratifier (jeopardy index) and are presented with values ranging from −100 to +100. Negative values reveal more pronounced inequalities among the most vulnerable, and positive reveal more pronounced disparities among the least vulnerable [28,29]. We also run some sensitivity analyses to explore potential stratification and subgroup analyses, aiming to evaluate the consistency of the overall results. All analyses were performed in Stata using the svy command to account for the primary sampling unit, version 17.1.

Results

The sociodemographic characteristics of the analytical sample (N = 74,077) of eligible participants are detailed in Table 1. Most participants were women (59.5%), self-reported their race and ethnicity as Brown (44.8%), and completed high school (37.5%). Approximately half of the sample either lacked knowledge or believe that chloroquine has a protective effect against COVID-19. Overall, 20.4% (95% CI: 20.0; 20.7) of participants reported believing that chloroquine was effective, while 27.2% (95% CI: 26.7; 27.7) indicated that they did not know.

Download:

Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs in the protective effects of chloroquine against COVID-19, categorized by sociodemographic variables. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1 to 3), 2020. N = 74,077^a.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.t001

The highest prevalence of a lack of knowledge and belief in the protective effect of chloroquine was observed in participants who identified as Indigenous. Participants with university degrees had a lower percentage of belief in the effect of chloroquine (16.7%) compared to those with lower levels of education. A gradient in education levels and wealth quartiles was noted among those unaware of the actual effect of chloroquine. The prevalence of a lack of knowledge regarding chloroquine’s protective effect was higher among individuals with lower education levels and those in the lowest wealth quartile. Conversely, among individuals who believe in the protective effect of chloroquine, the highest prevalence was observed in the lowest socioeconomic position (Table 1).

The associations between sociodemographic variables and a lack of knowledge, as well as the belief in the protective effect of chloroquine against COVID-19, are presented in Table 2. Women had lower odds of believing in chloroquine’s protective effects than men. Marginalized racial and ethnicity groups, along with individuals with lower education levels and socioeconomic status, had higher odds of mistakenly believing that chloroquine prevented COVID-19. Overall, those with lower education and socioeconomic status were more likely than their counterparts to report a lack of knowledge about the protective effects of chloroquine.

Download:

Table 2. Association between sociodemographic characteristics and misbelief in the protective effect of chloroquine against COVID-19. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1 to 3), 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.t002

The distribution of the jeopardy index showed that 2.9% of the population comprised male, white, highest education, and highest wealth quartile, and 4.1% consisted of women, Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous, lowest education, and lowest wealth quartile (S1 Table). In the middle category of the index (4), the proportion of sex and ethnicity was too similar to the overall population (S2 Table).

The prevalence of belief and lack of knowledge regarding the protective effect of chloroquine against COVID-19 by the Jeopardy index is presented in the Fig 1. In all groups, most participants did not believe in the protective effect of chloroquine. However, as Jeopardy index scores increased, the proportion of participants who did not believe in the protective effect of chloroquine decreased. Conversely, the percentage of individuals who were unaware of the chloroquine’s effect increased as Jeopardy index scores rose, ranging from 18.7% (CI95%: 17.0–20.4) among people in the lowest jeopardy index score to 33.6% (CI95%: 31.7–35.4) among the more vulnerable population. Compared to those in the lowest Jeopardy index score [male, white, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile], individuals with a score of three or higher had greater odds of reporting belief in the chloroquine’s protective effects (Table 3). In comparison, participants with a score of two or above had higher odds of being unaware of the effect of chloroquine. The differences between scores were more pronounced among those who were unaware of the chloroquine’s effect than among believers, as summarized by the indicators of absolute and relative inequalities (SII and CIX, respectively). By the study round, we observed an increase in the strength of the associations over time (S3 Table). The results were consistent according to alternative jeopardy indexes using different categories of race and ethnicity (S4 Table).

Download:

Table 3. Belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1 to 3), 2020.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.t003

Download:

Fig 1. Predicted prevalence of the belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1 to 3), 2020.

Jeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.g001

The effective non-pharmacological measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection showed almost universal “yes” responses. No disparities in mask use and stay-at-home practices were observed based on the jeopardy index (S5 Table). Using a binary outcome (reference: no/yes) to measure uncertainty (don’t know) showed a similar association slightly weaker than comparing “don’t know” with “no” as a reference (S6 Table and Table 3).

Discussion

The findings indicate that during the first months of the pandemic, a widespread misbelief existed regarding the chloroquine’s protective effect against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. One in five Brazilians believed in the use of chloroquine as a protection against the coronavirus, while nearly a quarter were uncertain about its effects. Furthermore, our study showed notable disparities, with a higher prevalence of misbelief, particularly among the most vulnerable population groups. On the other hand, the belief in the protective effect of mask usage and adherence to stay-at-home policies was nearly universal and did not exhibit inequalities based on the jeopardy index. These findings demonstrate the specific sources of denialism in Brazil and their inequitable impact on public perceptions.

The high misbelief in the protective effect of chloroquine against COVID-19 could be attributed to the data collection period, which was carried out between May and June 2020. However, it is important to note that there was a high assertive belief in the protective effect of chloroquine (20% answered “yes”) even with results and scientific consensus described in the first half of 2020 already pointing out the lack of robust evidence on the benefit of chloroquine and warned of its side effects. Since April 2020, the preliminary results of the CloroCovid-19 study have highlighted the inefficacy and risks associated with chloroquine in treating the disease [30]. And our results showed an increase in the prevalence of misbelief over time (from May to the end of June). If the beginning of the pandemic were the cause of the findings, a decrease over time would be expected.

In addition, the most current evidence indicates a similar percentage of the Brazilian population that continues to believe in the protective effect of chloroquine. The survey “The Face of Democracy”, for example, identified, in April 2021, that one in four Brazilians claims to have used drugs of the so-called “early treatment” against COVID-19 or to prevent infection by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

The executive power’s milestone in the public defense of chloroquine/hydroxychloroquine occurred on March 27, 2020, with a post by the President at that time on a social media platform. The post cited “accurate information” about chloroquine having a “high success rate” referencing a pre-print paper (published only in July 2020) that evaluated the effect of hydroxychloroquine in a non-randomized study with 36 French patients, following another post published at the time [31]. In February 2020, a parliamentary commission was established to address the COVID-19 crisis. Since then, technical documents and positions of the Federal Council of Medicine have been published supporting chloroquine mainly in the so-called “early treatment”, even for cases with mild symptoms, as observed in an Informative Note from May 2020. Since then, strategies such as the COVID Kit have been popularized, including the use of federal government digital platforms (TrateCOV) [31]. In this context, more robust scientific evidence has been signaling the null effect of chloroquine in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19, in addition to reports of side effects that were widely recorded throughout the pandemic [32–34].

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) stated in June 2020 that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are ineffective in treating SARS-CoV-2 infections. During the same period, the World Health Organization announced the interruption of clinical trials using chloroquine. In Brazil, except for the Federal Council of Medicine, scientific societies, scientists, and health councils warned about the risks of using chloroquine to face the pandemic. In May 2020, the National Health Council published a note indicating that scientific evidence suggested side effects without any benefit for outcomes related to COVID-19 [35]. Nevertheless, the defense of the drug by the president of the republic and his supporters continued throughout 2020 and 2021 [13,36]. Still, in 2022, statements about the benefits of chloroquine were made in several public interviews conducted by the head of the executive power [36].

The ineffectiveness of chloroquine (or hydroxychloroquine) in combating the SARS-CoV-2 virus is more than consolidated [37–39]. Findings from the DETECTCOV-19 cohort in Manaus indicate a higher seroprevalence (immunoglobulin G positivity) among individuals who self-medicated as a prophylactic strategy [40]. Similar results were observed in studies on the effect of hydroxychloroquine as a preventive or post-exposure therapy [41]. However, the population’s perception of chloroquine’s benefits (and others, such as ivermectin) persists, according to results from 2021 and 2022 [23,42,43].

Scientific denialism as a government policy may have caused a greater concentration of misperception about the role of chloroquine in facing the pandemic. Our findings identify inequalities, especially for individuals who were uncertain whether the drug protected them against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Although the answer “I do not know” may seem to be a lack of knowledge, it represents the population’s doubt influenced by the president’s speeches. It is noteworthy that for effective non-pharmacological measures to prevent infection (staying at home and wearing a mask), the percentage of respondents who did not know was < 1%, respectively. Thus, lack of knowledge seems to be more influenced by the government’s denialist strategy than by a scientific question about the drug’s effect. Therefore, it is plausible to understand that the Brazilian federal government’s strategy was an initiative to discredit the scientific consensus and create distrust among the population, making it challenging to adopt effective strategies to face the pandemic [12,44–47]. The perception of the available treatments tends to reduce the adoption of preventive measures. The governmental strategy aimed to achieve herd immunity (i.e., “greater contamination possible”) [13,48] to achieve economic goals unrelated to fundamental human rights, prioritizing the protection of life. The herd immunity proved impractical as was speculated by science since 2020, the chloroquine treatment was ineffective, and the result was high mortality attributable to the federal government’s denialist policy of the federal government [4,49].

The risk of political denialism interfering with public health is a growing concern. It is not new, but it is affecting more countries across different areas, even before the pandemic [50]. Considering our historical inequalities in health and the previous evidence aligned with the present findings, political denialism has the potential to eliminate societal achievements in population health in Brazil and exacerbate the marked and unfair inequities. Effective public health approaches can reduce the burden of disease by addressing macro-level injustices and improving population health, benefiting all human beings. As stated by Victora et al. [8], “the challenge is ultimately political”, even if it will be for facing the political denialism in public health. Several characteristics can play an important role in the effects of denialism on health, such as media exposure and regional context [50], which could be evaluated in future studies. In addition to the study limitations related to sampling and sample characteristics [20,21], a possible limitation of this analysis is the high percentage of losses and refusals (46−47%), which can lead to a differential bias. The refusal might be higher among wealthier people who believe in the chloroquine effect [51,52]. However, this possible bias may produce an underestimation of the misbelief in chloroquine’s protective effect against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. Thus, the potential selection bias may overestimate the association but simultaneously decrease the magnitude of the misbelief in the Brazilian population’s perceived effect of chloroquine.

Conclusions

The misbelief in chloroquine’s protective effect was widespread and affected more marginalized social groups among the Brazilian population. People with greater social vulnerability were those most affected by a lack of knowledge about the effectiveness of chloroquine. The denialist federal management of the pandemic in Brazil seems to produce inequitable misbelief in chloroquine’s protective effect, which may have influenced the tragic mortality observed in the country.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Jeopardy index distribution. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

^aJeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.s001

(DOCX)

S2 Table. Study’s sample description according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

^aJeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.s002

(DOCX)

S3 Table. Belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to the jeopardy index by the study’s rounds. Brazil, EPICOVID, 2020.

Statistically significant associations were highlighted in bold. ^a Multinomial logistic regression model. Odds ratios indicate the odds of reporting “yes” or “I don’t know” instead of “No”. OR <1 indicates that the participants were less likely, and OR >1 suggests that they were more likely to respond “Yes” or “I don’t know”, instead of “No”, to the question “Do you believe chloroquine offers protection against the coronavirus?” ^b Jeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-East Asian-Asian-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile. ^c Slope index of inequality (SII) and Concentration Index (CIX) (values between −100 and 100) according to the jeopardy index.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.s003

(DOCX)

S4 Table. Belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to alternative jeopardy indexes by removing specific race and ethnicity categories. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

Statistically significant associations were highlighted in bold. ^a Jeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile. ^b Jeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile. ^c Multinomial logistic regression model. Odds ratios indicate the odds of reporting “yes” or “I don’t know” instead of “No”. OR <1 indicates that the participants were less likely, and OR >1 suggests that they were more likely to respond “Yes” or “I don’t know”, instead of “No”, to the question “Do you believe chloroquine offers protection against the coronavirus?”.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.s004

(DOCX)

S5 Table. Prevalence of effective non-pharmacological measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

Jeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and lowest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.s005

(DOCX)

S6 Table. Uncertainty about the belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

Statistically significant associations were highlighted in bold. ^a Jeopardy index: Zero = male, White, highest education level, and highest wealth quartile; Eight = woman, Black-Brown-East Asian-Indigenous, lowest education level, and lowest wealth quartile. ^b Logistic regression model. Odds ratios indicate the odds of reporting “I don’t know” compared to “No/Yes”. OR <1 indicates that the participants were less likely, and OR >1 suggests that they were more likely to respond “I don’t know” instead of “Yes or No”, to the question “Do you believe chloroquine offers protection against the coronavirus?”.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0341666.s006

(DOCX)

References

1. Gebeyehu DT, East L, Wark S, Islam MS. Impact of COVID-19 on the food security and identifying the compromised food security dimension: a systematic review protocol. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0272859. pmid:35944031
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Panneer S, Kantamaneni K, Palaniswamy U, Bhat L, Pushparaj RRB, Nayar KR, et al. Health, economic and social development challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic: strategies for multiple and interconnected issues. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(5):770. pmid:35627910
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Ritchie H, Mathieu E, Rodés-Guirao L, Appel C, Giattino C, Ortiz-Ospina E, et al. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Our World Data [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 June 7]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
- View Article
- Google Scholar
4. Xavier DR, Lima Silva EE, Lara FA, Silva GRRE, Oliveira MF, Gurgel H, et al. Involvement of political and socio-economic factors in the spatial and temporal dynamics of COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil: A population-based study. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;10:100221. pmid:35309089
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
5. Baqui P, Marra V, Alaa AM, Bica I, Ercole A, van der Schaar M. Comparing COVID-19 risk factors in Brazil using machine learning: the importance of socioeconomic, demographic and structural factors. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15591.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Ribeiro KB, Ribeiro AF, Veras MADSM, de Castro MC. Social inequalities and COVID-19 mortality in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(3):732–42.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. II Inquérito Nacional sobre Insegurança Alimentar no Contexto da Pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil [livro eletrônico]: II VIGISAN: relatório final/Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar – PENSSAN. São Paulo, SP: Fundação Friedrich Ebert: Rede PENSSAN; 2022.
8. Victora CG, Barreto ML, Leal M do C, Monteiro CA, Schmidt MI, Paim J, et al. Health conditions and health-policy innovations in Brazil: the way forward. The Lancet. 2011;377(9782):2042–53.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Victora CG, Hartwig FP, Vidaletti LP, Martorell R, Osmond C, Richter LM, et al. Effects of early-life poverty on health and human capital in children and adolescents: analyses of national surveys and birth cohort studies in LMICs. Lancet. 2022;399(10336):1741–52. pmid:35489358
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Diethelm P, McKee M. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(1):2–4. pmid:19158101
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
11. Duarte ADM, César MRDA. Negação da política e negacionismo como política: pandemia e democracia. Educ Real. 2021;45.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
12. Ajzenman N, Cavalcanti T, Da Mata D. More than words: leaders’ speech and risky behavior during a pandemic. Camb Work Pap Econ. 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
13. Ventura DDFL, Aith FMA, Reis RR, Ferreira AB, Rosa AVD, Farias AS, et al. LexAtlas C19 - Brazil - The Timeline of the Federal Government’s Strategy to spread Covid-19 [Internet]. Zenodo; 2021 Aug [cited 2022 Sept 12]. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/5167005
- View Article
- Google Scholar
14. Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. [cited 2025 Nov 20]; Available from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
- View Article
- Google Scholar
15. Cooper B. Intersectionality [Internet]. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory. 2016 [cited 2022 July 6]. Available from: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328581.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199328581-e-20
- View Article
- Google Scholar
16. Venkatachalam D, Mishra G, Fatima A, Nadimpally S. ‘Marginalizing’ health: employing an equity and intersectionality frame. Saúde debate. 2020;44(spe1):109–19.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
17. Bauer GR, Churchill SM, Mahendran M, Walwyn C, Lizotte D, Villa-Rueda AA. Intersectionality in quantitative research: a systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM Popul Health. 2021;14:100798. pmid:33997247
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Mielke GI, Malta DC, Nunes BP, Cairney J. All are equal, but some are more equal than others: social determinants of leisure time physical activity through the lens of intersectionality. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):36. pmid:34991542
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
19. Demenech LM, Dumith SDC, Vieira MECD, Neiva-Silva L. Desigualdade econômica e risco de infecção e morte por COVID-19 no Brasil. Rev Bras Epidemiol [Internet]. 2020;23. [cited 2022 Sept 13]. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/j/rbepid/a/fm3gkNqTH9XS9nBfqcGwgfG/?lang=pt
- View Article
- Google Scholar
20. Hallal PC, Hartwig FP, Horta BL, Silveira MF, Struchiner CJ, Vidaletti LP, et al. SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in Brazil: results from two successive nationwide serological household surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(11):e1390–8. pmid:32979314
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
21. Horta BL, Silveira MF, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Hartwig FP, Dias MS, et al. Prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 according to socioeconomic and ethnic status in a nationwide Brazilian surveyPrevalência de anticorpos contra o SARS-CoV-2 de acordo com o status socioeconômico e étnico em uma pesquisa nacional no Brasil. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45:e105. pmid:34703458
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
22. Guimarães RM, Moreira MR. How does the context effect of denialism reinforce the oppression of the vulnerable people and negatively determine health? Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;12:100270. pmid:35529523
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
23. Tabak F. “A cara da Democracia”: o que passa na cabeça dos brasileiros?: Ao Ponto (podcast do jornal O Globo) online no Globoplay [Internet]. Globoplay. 2022 [cited 2022 Sept 13]. Available from: https://globoplay.globo.com/podcasts/episode/ao-ponto-podcast-do-jornal-o-globo/79bf660c-f340-415d-bb3f-d0621b73a708/
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Tabak F, Couto M. Terra plana, cloroquina como cura da Covid e homem na lua: o percentual dos brasileiros que acreditam em teorias da conspiração [Internet]. O Globo. 2022 [cited 2022 Sept 14]. Available from: https://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/pulso/post/2022/07/terra-plana-cloroquina-como-cura-da-covid-e-homem-na-lua-o-percentual-dos-brasileiros-que-acreditam-em-teorias-da-conspiracao.ghtml
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Hallal PC, Barros FC, Silveira MF, Barros AJDDE, Dellagostin OA, Pellanda LC, et al. EPICOVID19 protocol: repeated serological surveys on SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2020;25(9):3573–8. pmid:32876244
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Silveira MF, Barros AJD, Horta BL, Pellanda LC, Victora GD, Dellagostin OA, et al. Population-based surveys of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Southern Brazil. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1196–9. pmid:32641783
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
27. Barros AJD, Victora CG. A nationwide wealth score based on the 2000 Brazilian demographic census. Rev Saude Publica. 2005;39(4):523–9. pmid:16113899
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
28. da Silva ICM, Restrepo-Mendez MC, Costa JC, Ewerling F, Hellwig F, Ferreira LZ. Measurement of social inequalities in health: concepts and methodological approaches in the Brazilian context. Epidemiol E Serviços Saúde. 2018.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Barros AJD, Victora CG. Measuring coverage in MNCH: determining and interpreting inequalities in coverage of maternal, newborn, and child health interventions. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001390. pmid:23667332
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
30. Borba MGS, Val FFA, Sampaio VS, Alexandre MAA, Melo GC, Brito M, et al. Chloroquine diphosphate in two different dosages as adjunctive therapy of hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome in the context of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection: Preliminary safety results of a randomized, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial (CloroCovid-19 Study). medRxiv. 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Penaforte TR. Denialism as policy: the debate on chloroquine in a congressional inquiry in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2021;37(7):e00023021. pmid:34406213
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Melo JRR, Duarte EC, Moraes MVD, Fleck K, Silva ASDNE, Arrais PSD. Adverse drug reactions in patients with COVID-19 in Brazil: analysis of spontaneous notifications of the Brazilian pharmacovigilance system. Cad Saúde Pública. 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Hernandez AV, Roman YM, Pasupuleti V, Barboza JJ, White CM. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):287–96.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. Borba MGS, Val FFA, Sampaio VS, Alexandre MAA, Melo GC, Brito M, et al. Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e208857. pmid:32330277
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
35. Anjos LD. NOTA PÚBLICA: CNS alerta sobre os riscos do uso da Cloroquina e Hidroxicloroquina no tratamento da Covid-19 [Internet]. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. [cited 2022 Sept 12]. Available from: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/ultimas-noticias-cns/1194-nota-publica-cns-alerta-sobre-os-riscos-do-uso-da-cloroquina-e-hidroxicloroquina-no-tratamento-da-covid-21
- View Article
- Google Scholar
36. Freitas A, Nalon T, Moura B, dos Santos LF. Todas as declarações de Bolsonaro, checadas. Reportagem: Ana Rita Cunha, Amanda Ribeiro, Luiz Fernando Menezes, Ana Freitas, Bruno Fávero, Priscila Pacheco e Marco Faustino. Desenvolvimento: Carolina Cavaleiro, Rômulo Collopy, Erico Rosa e Guilherme Lobo (Cafe.art.br), Sérgio Spagnuolo, Bárbara Libório, Ana Rita Cunha, Tai Nalon e Parafernália Interativa [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sept 14]. Available from: https://aosfatos.org/todas-as-declara%C3%A7%C3%B5es-de-bolsonaro/
- View Article
- Google Scholar
37. Lamontagne F, Agoritsas T, Siemieniuk R, Rochwerg B, Bartoszko J, Askie L, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19. BMJ. 2021.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
38. Martins-Filho PR, Ferreira LC, Heimfarth L, Araújo AADS, Quintans-Júnior LJ. Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;2:100062. pmid:34485970
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Singh B, Ryan H, Kredo T, Chaplin M, Fletcher T. Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2(2):CD013587. pmid:33624299
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
40. Lalwani P, Salgado BB, Filho IVP, da Silva DSS, de Morais TBDN, Jordão MF. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and associated factors in Manaus, Brazil: baseline results from the DETECTCoV-19 cohort study. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;110:141–50.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, Pastick KA, Lofgren SM, Okafor EC. A randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):517–25.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Santos F. A Cara da Democracia - Paradoxos do Negacionismo [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Sept 13]. Available from: https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/a-cara-da-democracia/2021/06/02/paradoxos-do-negacionismo.htm
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Collucci C. Crença em tratamento ineficaz para Covid vai além do bolsonarismo, diz estudo [Internet]. Folha de S.Paulo. 2021 [cited 2022 Sept 14]. Available from: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2021/06/crenca-em-tratamento-ineficaz-para-covid-vai-alem-do-bolsonarismo-diz-estudo.shtml
- View Article
- Google Scholar
44. Galhardi CP, Freire NP, Fagundes MCM, Minayo MCDS, Cunha ICKO. Fake News and vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2022;27(5):1849–58. pmid:35544814
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
45. Storopoli J, Braga da Silva Neto WL, Mesch GS. Confidence in social institutions, perceived vulnerability and the adoption of recommended protective behaviors in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Sci Med. 2020;265:113477. pmid:33190926
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
46. Knaul FM, Touchton M, Arreola-Ornelas H, Atun R, Anyosa RJC, Frenk J, et al. Punt politics as failure of health system stewardship: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic response in Brazil and Mexico. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;4:100086. pmid:34664040
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Touchton M, Knaul FM, Arreola-Ornelas H, Porteny T, Sánchez M, Méndez O, et al. A partisan pandemic: state government public health policies to combat COVID-19 in Brazil. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005223. pmid:34083242
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Furlan L, Caramelli B. The regrettable story of the “Covid Kit” and the “Early Treatment of Covid-19” in Brazil. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;4:100089. pmid:34611650
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
49. de Almeida L, Carelli PV, Cavalcanti NG, do Nascimento J-D Jr, Felinto D. Quantifying political influence on COVID-19 fatality in Brazil. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0264293. pmid:35820102
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. The Lancet Child Adolescent Health. Vaccine hesitancy: a generation at risk. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019;3(5):281. pmid:30981382
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Hallal P. SOS Brazil: science under attack. Lancet. 2021;397(10272):373.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
52. Hallal PC, Victora CG, Silveira MF, Barros AJD, Menezes AMB, Horta BL, et al. The challenge of conducting epidemiological research in times of pandemic and denialism: 1-year anniversary of the EPICOVID-19 project in Brazil. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(4):1049–52. pmid:34215876
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Gebeyehu DT, East L, Wark S, Islam MS. Impact of COVID-19 on the food security and identifying the compromised food security dimension: a systematic review protocol. PLoS One. 2022;17(8):e0272859. pmid:35944031
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Panneer S, Kantamaneni K, Palaniswamy U, Bhat L, Pushparaj RRB, Nayar KR, et al. Health, economic and social development challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic: strategies for multiple and interconnected issues. Healthcare (Basel). 2022;10(5):770. pmid:35627910
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Ritchie H, Mathieu E, Rodés-Guirao L, Appel C, Giattino C, Ortiz-Ospina E, et al. Coronavirus Pandemic (COVID-19). Our World Data [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2022 June 7]. Available from: https://ourworldindata.org/covid-deaths
View Article
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Xavier DR, Lima Silva EE, Lara FA, Silva GRRE, Oliveira MF, Gurgel H, et al. Involvement of political and socio-economic factors in the spatial and temporal dynamics of COVID-19 outcomes in Brazil: A population-based study. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;10:100221. pmid:35309089
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[13] View Article

[14] PubMed/NCBI

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Baqui P, Marra V, Alaa AM, Bica I, Ercole A, van der Schaar M. Comparing COVID-19 risk factors in Brazil using machine learning: the importance of socioeconomic, demographic and structural factors. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):15591.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Ribeiro KB, Ribeiro AF, Veras MADSM, de Castro MC. Social inequalities and COVID-19 mortality in the city of São Paulo, Brazil. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(3):732–42.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. II Inquérito Nacional sobre Insegurança Alimentar no Contexto da Pandemia da COVID-19 no Brasil [livro eletrônico]: II VIGISAN: relatório final/Rede Brasileira de Pesquisa em Soberania e Segurança Alimentar – PENSSAN. São Paulo, SP: Fundação Friedrich Ebert: Rede PENSSAN; 2022.

[ref8] 8. Victora CG, Barreto ML, Leal M do C, Monteiro CA, Schmidt MI, Paim J, et al. Health conditions and health-policy innovations in Brazil: the way forward. The Lancet. 2011;377(9782):2042–53.
View Article
Google Scholar

[24] View Article

[25] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Victora CG, Hartwig FP, Vidaletti LP, Martorell R, Osmond C, Richter LM, et al. Effects of early-life poverty on health and human capital in children and adolescents: analyses of national surveys and birth cohort studies in LMICs. Lancet. 2022;399(10336):1741–52. pmid:35489358
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] PubMed/NCBI

[29] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Diethelm P, McKee M. Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond? Eur J Public Health. 2009;19(1):2–4. pmid:19158101
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[31] View Article

[32] PubMed/NCBI

[33] Google Scholar

[ref11] 11. Duarte ADM, César MRDA. Negação da política e negacionismo como política: pandemia e democracia. Educ Real. 2021;45.
View Article
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Ajzenman N, Cavalcanti T, Da Mata D. More than words: leaders’ speech and risky behavior during a pandemic. Camb Work Pap Econ. 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[38] View Article

[39] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Ventura DDFL, Aith FMA, Reis RR, Ferreira AB, Rosa AVD, Farias AS, et al. LexAtlas C19 - Brazil - The Timeline of the Federal Government’s Strategy to spread Covid-19 [Internet]. Zenodo; 2021 Aug [cited 2022 Sept 12]. Available from: https://zenodo.org/record/5167005
View Article
Google Scholar

[41] View Article

[42] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Crenshaw K. Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics. [cited 2025 Nov 20]; Available from: https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8
View Article
Google Scholar

[44] View Article

[45] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Cooper B. Intersectionality [Internet]. The Oxford Handbook of Feminist Theory. 2016 [cited 2022 July 6]. Available from: https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199328581.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199328581-e-20
View Article
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Venkatachalam D, Mishra G, Fatima A, Nadimpally S. ‘Marginalizing’ health: employing an equity and intersectionality frame. Saúde debate. 2020;44(spe1):109–19.
View Article
Google Scholar

[50] View Article

[51] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Bauer GR, Churchill SM, Mahendran M, Walwyn C, Lizotte D, Villa-Rueda AA. Intersectionality in quantitative research: a systematic review of its emergence and applications of theory and methods. SSM Popul Health. 2021;14:100798. pmid:33997247
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[53] View Article

[54] PubMed/NCBI

[55] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Mielke GI, Malta DC, Nunes BP, Cairney J. All are equal, but some are more equal than others: social determinants of leisure time physical activity through the lens of intersectionality. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):36. pmid:34991542
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[57] View Article

[58] PubMed/NCBI

[59] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Demenech LM, Dumith SDC, Vieira MECD, Neiva-Silva L. Desigualdade econômica e risco de infecção e morte por COVID-19 no Brasil. Rev Bras Epidemiol [Internet]. 2020;23. [cited 2022 Sept 13]. Available from: http://www.scielo.br/j/rbepid/a/fm3gkNqTH9XS9nBfqcGwgfG/?lang=pt
View Article
Google Scholar

[61] View Article

[62] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Hallal PC, Hartwig FP, Horta BL, Silveira MF, Struchiner CJ, Vidaletti LP, et al. SARS-CoV-2 antibody prevalence in Brazil: results from two successive nationwide serological household surveys. Lancet Glob Health. 2020;8(11):e1390–8. pmid:32979314
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[64] View Article

[65] PubMed/NCBI

[66] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Horta BL, Silveira MF, Barros AJD, Barros FC, Hartwig FP, Dias MS, et al. Prevalence of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 according to socioeconomic and ethnic status in a nationwide Brazilian surveyPrevalência de anticorpos contra o SARS-CoV-2 de acordo com o status socioeconômico e étnico em uma pesquisa nacional no Brasil. Rev Panam Salud Publica. 2021;45:e105. pmid:34703458
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[68] View Article

[69] PubMed/NCBI

[70] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Guimarães RM, Moreira MR. How does the context effect of denialism reinforce the oppression of the vulnerable people and negatively determine health? Lancet Reg Health Am. 2022;12:100270. pmid:35529523
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[72] View Article

[73] PubMed/NCBI

[74] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Tabak F. “A cara da Democracia”: o que passa na cabeça dos brasileiros?: Ao Ponto (podcast do jornal O Globo) online no Globoplay [Internet]. Globoplay. 2022 [cited 2022 Sept 13]. Available from: https://globoplay.globo.com/podcasts/episode/ao-ponto-podcast-do-jornal-o-globo/79bf660c-f340-415d-bb3f-d0621b73a708/
View Article
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Tabak F, Couto M. Terra plana, cloroquina como cura da Covid e homem na lua: o percentual dos brasileiros que acreditam em teorias da conspiração [Internet]. O Globo. 2022 [cited 2022 Sept 14]. Available from: https://oglobo.globo.com/blogs/pulso/post/2022/07/terra-plana-cloroquina-como-cura-da-covid-e-homem-na-lua-o-percentual-dos-brasileiros-que-acreditam-em-teorias-da-conspiracao.ghtml
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Hallal PC, Barros FC, Silveira MF, Barros AJDDE, Dellagostin OA, Pellanda LC, et al. EPICOVID19 protocol: repeated serological surveys on SARS-CoV-2 antibodies in Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2020;25(9):3573–8. pmid:32876244
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] PubMed/NCBI

[84] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Silveira MF, Barros AJD, Horta BL, Pellanda LC, Victora GD, Dellagostin OA, et al. Population-based surveys of antibodies against SARS-CoV-2 in Southern Brazil. Nat Med. 2020;26(8):1196–9. pmid:32641783
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[86] View Article

[87] PubMed/NCBI

[88] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Barros AJD, Victora CG. A nationwide wealth score based on the 2000 Brazilian demographic census. Rev Saude Publica. 2005;39(4):523–9. pmid:16113899
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[90] View Article

[91] PubMed/NCBI

[92] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. da Silva ICM, Restrepo-Mendez MC, Costa JC, Ewerling F, Hellwig F, Ferreira LZ. Measurement of social inequalities in health: concepts and methodological approaches in the Brazilian context. Epidemiol E Serviços Saúde. 2018.
View Article
Google Scholar

[94] View Article

[95] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Barros AJD, Victora CG. Measuring coverage in MNCH: determining and interpreting inequalities in coverage of maternal, newborn, and child health interventions. PLoS Med. 2013;10(5):e1001390. pmid:23667332
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[97] View Article

[98] PubMed/NCBI

[99] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Borba MGS, Val FFA, Sampaio VS, Alexandre MAA, Melo GC, Brito M, et al. Chloroquine diphosphate in two different dosages as adjunctive therapy of hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome in the context of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection: Preliminary safety results of a randomized, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial (CloroCovid-19 Study). medRxiv. 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Penaforte TR. Denialism as policy: the debate on chloroquine in a congressional inquiry in Brazil. Cad Saude Publica. 2021;37(7):e00023021. pmid:34406213
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Melo JRR, Duarte EC, Moraes MVD, Fleck K, Silva ASDNE, Arrais PSD. Adverse drug reactions in patients with COVID-19 in Brazil: analysis of spontaneous notifications of the Brazilian pharmacovigilance system. Cad Saúde Pública. 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Hernandez AV, Roman YM, Pasupuleti V, Barboza JJ, White CM. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for treatment or prophylaxis of COVID-19. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173(4):287–96.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. Borba MGS, Val FFA, Sampaio VS, Alexandre MAA, Melo GC, Brito M, et al. Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(4):e208857. pmid:32330277
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] PubMed/NCBI

[116] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Anjos LD. NOTA PÚBLICA: CNS alerta sobre os riscos do uso da Cloroquina e Hidroxicloroquina no tratamento da Covid-19 [Internet]. Conselho Nacional de Saúde. [cited 2022 Sept 12]. Available from: http://conselho.saude.gov.br/ultimas-noticias-cns/1194-nota-publica-cns-alerta-sobre-os-riscos-do-uso-da-cloroquina-e-hidroxicloroquina-no-tratamento-da-covid-21
View Article
Google Scholar

[118] View Article

[119] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Freitas A, Nalon T, Moura B, dos Santos LF. Todas as declarações de Bolsonaro, checadas. Reportagem: Ana Rita Cunha, Amanda Ribeiro, Luiz Fernando Menezes, Ana Freitas, Bruno Fávero, Priscila Pacheco e Marco Faustino. Desenvolvimento: Carolina Cavaleiro, Rômulo Collopy, Erico Rosa e Guilherme Lobo (Cafe.art.br), Sérgio Spagnuolo, Bárbara Libório, Ana Rita Cunha, Tai Nalon e Parafernália Interativa [Internet]. [cited 2022 Sept 14]. Available from: https://aosfatos.org/todas-as-declara%C3%A7%C3%B5es-de-bolsonaro/
View Article
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Lamontagne F, Agoritsas T, Siemieniuk R, Rochwerg B, Bartoszko J, Askie L, et al. A living WHO guideline on drugs to prevent covid-19. BMJ. 2021.
View Article
Google Scholar

[124] View Article

[125] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Martins-Filho PR, Ferreira LC, Heimfarth L, Araújo AADS, Quintans-Júnior LJ. Efficacy and safety of hydroxychloroquine as pre-and post-exposure prophylaxis and treatment of COVID-19: A systematic review and meta-analysis of blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;2:100062. pmid:34485970
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[127] View Article

[128] PubMed/NCBI

[129] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Singh B, Ryan H, Kredo T, Chaplin M, Fletcher T. Chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine for prevention and treatment of COVID-19. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021;2(2):CD013587. pmid:33624299
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[131] View Article

[132] PubMed/NCBI

[133] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Lalwani P, Salgado BB, Filho IVP, da Silva DSS, de Morais TBDN, Jordão MF. SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence and associated factors in Manaus, Brazil: baseline results from the DETECTCoV-19 cohort study. Int J Infect Dis. 2021;110:141–50.
View Article
Google Scholar

[135] View Article

[136] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Boulware DR, Pullen MF, Bangdiwala AS, Pastick KA, Lofgren SM, Okafor EC. A randomized trial of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19. N Engl J Med. 2020;383(6):517–25.
View Article
Google Scholar

[138] View Article

[139] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Santos F. A Cara da Democracia - Paradoxos do Negacionismo [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2022 Sept 13]. Available from: https://noticias.uol.com.br/colunas/a-cara-da-democracia/2021/06/02/paradoxos-do-negacionismo.htm
View Article
Google Scholar

[141] View Article

[142] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Collucci C. Crença em tratamento ineficaz para Covid vai além do bolsonarismo, diz estudo [Internet]. Folha de S.Paulo. 2021 [cited 2022 Sept 14]. Available from: https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/equilibrioesaude/2021/06/crenca-em-tratamento-ineficaz-para-covid-vai-alem-do-bolsonarismo-diz-estudo.shtml
View Article
Google Scholar

[144] View Article

[145] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Galhardi CP, Freire NP, Fagundes MCM, Minayo MCDS, Cunha ICKO. Fake News and vaccine hesitancy in the COVID-19 pandemic in Brazil. Cien Saude Colet. 2022;27(5):1849–58. pmid:35544814
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[147] View Article

[148] PubMed/NCBI

[149] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. Storopoli J, Braga da Silva Neto WL, Mesch GS. Confidence in social institutions, perceived vulnerability and the adoption of recommended protective behaviors in Brazil during the COVID-19 pandemic. Soc Sci Med. 2020;265:113477. pmid:33190926
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[151] View Article

[152] PubMed/NCBI

[153] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Knaul FM, Touchton M, Arreola-Ornelas H, Atun R, Anyosa RJC, Frenk J, et al. Punt politics as failure of health system stewardship: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic response in Brazil and Mexico. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;4:100086. pmid:34664040
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Touchton M, Knaul FM, Arreola-Ornelas H, Porteny T, Sánchez M, Méndez O, et al. A partisan pandemic: state government public health policies to combat COVID-19 in Brazil. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(6):e005223. pmid:34083242
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] PubMed/NCBI

[161] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Furlan L, Caramelli B. The regrettable story of the “Covid Kit” and the “Early Treatment of Covid-19” in Brazil. Lancet Reg Health Am. 2021;4:100089. pmid:34611650
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] PubMed/NCBI

[165] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. de Almeida L, Carelli PV, Cavalcanti NG, do Nascimento J-D Jr, Felinto D. Quantifying political influence on COVID-19 fatality in Brazil. PLoS One. 2022;17(7):e0264293. pmid:35820102
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[167] View Article

[168] PubMed/NCBI

[169] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. The Lancet Child Adolescent Health. Vaccine hesitancy: a generation at risk. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. 2019;3(5):281. pmid:30981382
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[171] View Article

[172] PubMed/NCBI

[173] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Hallal P. SOS Brazil: science under attack. Lancet. 2021;397(10272):373.
View Article
Google Scholar

[175] View Article

[176] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Hallal PC, Victora CG, Silveira MF, Barros AJD, Menezes AMB, Horta BL, et al. The challenge of conducting epidemiological research in times of pandemic and denialism: 1-year anniversary of the EPICOVID-19 project in Brazil. Int J Epidemiol. 2021;50(4):1049–52. pmid:34215876
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Objectives

Study design

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Introduction

Materials and methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusions

Supporting information

S1 Table. Jeopardy index distribution. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

S2 Table. Study’s sample description according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

S3 Table. Belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to the jeopardy index by the study’s rounds. Brazil, EPICOVID, 2020.

S4 Table. Belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to alternative jeopardy indexes by removing specific race and ethnicity categories. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

S5 Table. Prevalence of effective non-pharmacological measures to prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

S6 Table. Uncertainty about the belief in the chloroquine's protective effect against COVID-19 according to the jeopardy index. Brazil, EPICOVID (rounds 1–3), 2020.

References