Trial reportBMJ global health2021
Debunking highly prevalent health misinformation using audio dramas delivered by WhatsApp: evidence from a randomised controlled trial in Sierra Leone.
Trial report in BMJ global health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04112680 (The Contagious Misinformation Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 12 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.
The Contagious Misinformation Trial: Debunking Prevalent Misinformation About an Infectious Disease Through Audio Dramas in Freetown, Sierra Leone
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Debunking COVID-19 vaccine misinformation with an audio drama in Ghana, a randomized control trial.Scientific reports · 2025Trial
- COVID-19 myth-busting: an experimental study.BMC public health · 2022Trial
- Scoping review of artificial intelligence via mobile technology and social media for health in Africa.Nature communications · 2025Article
- Restoring institutional confidence in backsliding democracies: Evidence from Mexico.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Online Interventions Addressing Health Misinformation: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Author Correction: A meta-analysis of correction effects in science-relevant misinformation.Nature human behaviour · 2025Article
- Perspectives of healthcare professionals on training for quantitative G6PD testing during implementation of tafenoquine in Brazil (QualiTRuST Study).PLoS neglected tropical diseases · 2024Article
- Presidents and vaccines: head of state inoculation as a tool for vaccine promotion.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Correcting vaccine misinformation: A failure to replicate familiarity or fear-driven backfire effects.PloS one · 2023Article
- Social Media for Public Health: Framework for Social Media-Based Public Health Campaigns.Journal of medical Internet research · 2022Article
- Correction format has a limited role when debunking misinformation.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionInfectious disease misinformation is widespread and poses challenges to disease control. There is limited evidence on how to effectively counter health misinformation in a community setting, particularly in low-income regions, and unsettled scientific debate about whether misinformation should be directly discussed and debunked, or implicitly countered by providing scientifically correct information.
methodsThe Contagious Misinformation Trial developed and tested interventions designed to counter highly prevalent infectious disease misinformation in Sierra Leone, namely the beliefs that (1) mosquitoes cause typhoid and (2) typhoid co-occurs with malaria. The information intervention for group A (n=246) explicitly discussed misinformation and explained why it was incorrect and then provided the scientifically correct information. The intervention for group B (n=245) only focused on providing correct information, without directly discussing related misinformation. Both interventions were delivered via audio dramas on WhatsApp that incorporated local cultural understandings of typhoid. Participants were randomised 1:1:1 to the intervention groups or the control group (n=245), who received two episodes about breast feeding.
resultsAt baseline 51% believed that typhoid is caused by mosquitoes and 59% believed that typhoid and malaria always co-occur. The endline survey was completed by 91% of participants. Results from the intention-to-treat, per-protocol and as-treated analyses show that both interventions substantially reduced belief in misinformation compared with the control group. Estimates from these analyses, as well as an exploratory dose-response analysis, suggest that direct debunking may be more effective at countering misinformation. Both interventions improved people's knowledge and self-reported behaviour around typhoid risk reduction, and yielded self-reported increases in an important preventive method, drinking treated water.
conclusionThese results from a field experiment in a community setting show that highly prevalent health misinformation can be countered, and that direct, detailed debunking may be most effective. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04112680.
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.