ArticleNursing outlook2020
Knowledge and information credibility evaluation strategies regarding COVID-19: A cross-sectional study.
Article in Nursing outlook, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- "Is this professionally correct?": understanding the criteria nurses use to evaluate information.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2025Article
- Does knowledge make a difference? Understanding how the lay public and experts assess the credibility of information on novel foods.Public understanding of science (Bristol, England) · 2024Article
- The coronavirus disease 2019 infodemic: a concept analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- The moderating influence of perceived government information transparency on COVID-19 pandemic information adoption on social media systems.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Thought Believability and Anxious Feelings about COVID-19: A Case-Control Study in Northeastern Iran.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2023Article
- The Role of Science-Based Knowledge on the SARS-CoV-2 Virus in Reducing COVID-19-Induced Anxiety among Nurses.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Article
- Sustainable leadership and wellbeing of healthcare personnel: A sequential mediation model of procedural knowledge and compassion.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Dear Pandemic: Nurses as key partners in fighting the COVID-19 infodemic.Public health nursing (Boston, Mass.) · 2021Article
- How do adolescents navigate COVID-19 information, and why does it matter?Journal of global healthArticle
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has not only caused significant challenges for health systems worldwide, but also fueled a surge in misinformation. Nurses as frontline health care providers should be equipped with the most accurate information on COVID-19. PURPOSE: This study examines nurses' knowledge and strategies of information credibility sourcing.
methodA cross-sectional survey among nurses and laypersons with no health care background. The questionnaire dealt with knowledge and ability assess credibility of COVID-19 information.
findingsNurses' knowledge of COVID-19 preventative behaviors was significantly higher than that of laypersons; however, there was no difference in science-based knowledge of COVID-19. In contrast to laypersons, nurses in this study were better able to discern the credibility of health-related information about COVID-19 than laypersons. Yet they rarely used scientific criteria in evaluating conflicting information. DISCUSSION: Given the importance of assessing the credibility of information, both information literacy skills and science-based knowledge about COVID-19 should be offered.
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.