ArticleInformation processing & management2020
Promoting users' intention to share online health articles on social media: The role of confirmation bias.
Article in Information processing & management, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 84 citations in OpenAlex.
- Willingness to share information on social media: a systematic literature review (2020-2024).Frontiers in psychology · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Evaluating online information on reduced fetal movements: a mixed-methods study.Irish journal of medical science · 2026Article
- Social Media as a Double-Edged Sword in Sports Nutrition Dissemination: Opportunities, Challenges, and Pathways Forward.Current nutrition reports · 2026Review
- Orthorexia nervosa and social media: A mixed-methods scoping review using a systematic methodology.PloS one · 2026Article
- A study of Facebook comments regarding amber teething necklaces: insights into public perception.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2025Article
- Understanding Social Media Information Sharing in Individuals with Depression: Insights from the Elaboration Likelihood Model and Schema Activation Theory.Psychology research and behavior management · 2024Article
- Older Adults' Trust and Distrust in COVID-19 Public Health Information: Qualitative Critical Incident Study.JMIR aging · 2023Article
- What are the ways in which social media is used in the context of complementary and alternative medicine in the health and medical scholarly literature? a scoping review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Article
- How Does Social Media Exposure and Engagement Influence College Students' Use of ENDS Products? A Cross-lagged Longitudinal Study.Health communication · 2023Article
- Online Medical Misinformation in Cancer: Distinguishing Fact From Fiction.JCO oncology practice · 2022Review
- Distorted Human Decision-Making as a Critical Aspect of Pandemic Planning and Preparedness.The Yale journal of biology and medicine · 2022Review
- The relationship between eHealth literacy, social media self-efficacy and health communication intention among Chinese nursing undergraduates: A cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- The study on the impact of short video tourism Vloggers at social media platform on online sharing intention.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- A Confirmation Bias View on Social Media Induced Polarisation During Covid-19.Information systems frontiers : a journal of research and innovation · 2021Article
- What Influences Physicians' Online Knowledge Sharing? A Stimulus-Response Perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Understanding the #longCOVID and #longhaulers Conversation on Twitter: Multimethod Study.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
- Factors Affecting Physicians' Credibility on Twitter When Sharing Health Information: Online Experimental Study.JMIR infodemiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Nowadays, it is a common practice for healthcare professionals to spread medical knowledge by posting health articles on social media. However, promoting users' intention to share such articles is challenging because the extent of sharing intention varies in their eHealth literacy (high or low) and the content valence of the article that they are exposed to (positive or negative). This study investigates boundary conditions under which eHealth literacy and content valence help to increase users' intention to share by introducing a moderating role of confirmation bias-a tendency to prefer information that conforms to their initial beliefs. A 2 (eHealth literacy: high vs. low) × 2 (content valence: positive vs. negative) between-subjects experiment was conducted in a sample of 80 participants. Levels of confirmation bias ranging from extreme negative bias to extreme positive bias among the participants were assessed during the experiment. Results suggested that: (1) users with a high level of eHealth literacy were more likely to share positive health articles when they had extreme confirmation bias; (2) users with a high level of eHealth literacy were more likely to share negative health articles when they had moderate confirmation bias or no confirmation bias; (3) users with a low level of eHealth literacy were more likely to share health articles regardless of positive or negative content valence when they had moderate positive confirmation bias. This study sheds new light on the role of confirmation bias in users' health information sharing. Also, it offers implications for health information providers who want to increase the visibility of their online health articles: they need to consider readers' eHealth literacy and confirmation bias when deciding the content valence of the articles.
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.