Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35384446›Full record

ReviewBundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz2022

[Causes of belief in conspiracy narratives and recommendations for successful risk communication in healthcare].

Pia Lamberty

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Pia LambertyCeMAS - Center für Monitoring, Analyse und Strategie, Dudenstraße 10, 10965, Berlin, Deutschland. pia.lamberty@cemas.io.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the belief in conspiracy narratives within the population strongly influenced the implementation of containment measures and medical recommendations. Conspiracy narratives involve the belief that a group perceived as powerful would pursue secret plans to harm society, which distinguishes them from misinformation or disinformation. This paper presents findings from the research literature on the causes of conspiracy beliefs, their effects on individual health behaviors, and ways to counteract their spread.In situations where people have less capacity and motivation for deeper information processing, they form their opinions more heuristically, which increases vulnerability to cognitive biases. People become particularly susceptible to receiving misinformation or disinformation, which are frequently linked to the emotionalization of facts and simplistic responses. Belief in conspiracy narratives may become more easily established, with additional issues of personal identity and various psychological motives playing a role, among others. A general distrust of people who are perceived as "powerful," such as representatives from science, medicine, and politics, can arise. Digital networks additionally contribute to the spread of conspiracy narratives.There are several ways that healthcare institutions can reduce the emergence and spread of misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy narratives through their risk and crisis communications. The Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication Model (CERC) provides important approaches in this regard.

Indexed as

COVID-19Social MediaCommunicationDelivery of Health CareGermanyHumansPandemicsConspiracy theoryDealing with vaccination criticismRisk perceptionSocial mediaVaccination opponents

Identifiers

PMID35384446
PMCPMC8985560

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.