ArticlePloS one2020
Networked collective intelligence improves dissemination of scientific information regarding smoking risks.
Article in PloS one, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04779827 (Improving Health Equity for COVID-19 Vaccination and Related Health Behaviors for At-risk Populations Using Online Social Networks), which is not on this map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Improving Health Equity for COVID-19 Vaccination and Related Health Behaviors for At-risk Populations Using Online Social Networks
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 70 citations in OpenAlex.
- Production of a Health Awareness Video on Precautionary Measures Against Respiratory Infectious Diseases for Public Transportation Drivers: Protocol for a Scoping Review, a Delphi Study, and a Randomized Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Social Network Determinants of Cigarette Forgoing and Quit-Related Conversations in a 15-Day Ecological Momentary Assessment Study in Mexico and the US.Tobacco use insights · 2026Article
- On the graph theory of majority illusions: theoretical results and computational experiments.Autonomous agents and multi-agent systems · 2025Article
- Experimental evidence for structured information-sharing networks reducing medical errors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Building public trust and confidence in secondary use of health data for healthcare improvement and research: a qualitative study pre-protocol.HRB open research · 2023Article
- The reduction of race and gender bias in clinical treatment recommendations using clinician peer networks in an experimental setting.Nature communications · 2021Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Despite substantial investments in public health campaigns, misunderstanding of health-related scientific information is pervasive. This is especially true in the case of tobacco use, where smokers have been found to systematically misperceive scientific information about the negative health effects of smoking, in some cases leading smokers to increase their pro-smoking bias. Here, we extend recent work on 'networked collective intelligence' by testing the hypothesis that allowing smokers and nonsmokers to collaboratively evaluate anti-smoking advertisements in online social networks can improve their ability to accurately assess the negative health effects of tobacco use. Using Amazon's Mechanical Turk, we conducted an online experiment where smokers and nonsmokers (N = 1600) were exposed to anti-smoking advertisements and asked to estimate the negative health effects of tobacco use, either on their own or in the presence of peer influence in a social network. Contrary to popular predictions, we find that both smokers and nonsmokers were surprisingly inaccurate at interpreting anti-smoking messages, and their errors persisted if they continued to interpret these messages on their own. However, smokers and nonsmokers significantly improved in their ability to accurately interpret anti-smoking messages by sharing their opinions in structured online social networks. Specifically, subjects in social networks reduced the error of their risk estimates by over 10 times more than subjects who revised solely based on individual reflection (p < 0.001, 10 experimental trials in total). These results suggest that social media networks may be used to activate social learning that improves the public's ability to accurately interpret vital public health information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.