Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36099011›Full record

ArticleJMIR human factors2022

Reinterpretation of Health Information in the Context of an Emerging Infectious Disease: A Digital Focus Group Study.

Rayner Kay Jin Tan, Jane Mingjie Lim, Pearlyn Hui Min Neo, Suan Ee Ong

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR human factors, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact, top 83% of its field
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

0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.

Rayner Kay Jin TanUniversity of North Carolina Project-China, Guangzhou, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9188-3368
Jane Mingjie LimSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9017-4714
Pearlyn Hui Min NeoSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7797-8942
Suan Ee OngSaw Swee Hock School of Public Health, National University of Singapore and National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7365-9015
National University of Singapore · SG

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMisinformation related to the COVID-19 pandemic has accelerated global public concern and panic. The glut of information, or "infodemic," has caused concern for authorities due to its negative impacts on COVID-19 prevention and control, spurring calls for a greater scholarly focus on health literacy during the pandemic. Nevertheless, few studies have sought to qualitatively examine how individuals interpreted and assimilated health information at the initial wave of COVID-19 restrictions.

objectiveWe developed this qualitative study adopting chat-based focus group discussions to investigate how individuals interpreted COVID-19 health information during the first wave of COVID-19 restrictions.

methodsWe conducted a qualitative study in Singapore to investigate how individuals perceive and interpret information that they receive on COVID-19. Data were generated through online focus group discussions conducted on the mobile messaging smartphone app WhatsApp. From March 28 to April 13, 2020, we held eight WhatsApp-based focus groups (N=60) with participants stratified by age groups, namely 21-30 years, 31-40 years, 41-50 years, and 51 years and above. Data were thematically analyzed.

resultsA total of four types of COVID-19 health information were generated from the thematic analysis, labeled as formal health information, informal health information, suspicious health information, and fake health information, respectively. How participants interpreted these categories of information depended largely on the perceived trustworthiness of the information source as well as the perceived veracity of information. Both factors were instrumental in determining individuals' perceptions, and their subsequent treatment and assimilation of COVID-19-related information.

conclusionsBoth perceived trustworthiness of the information source and perceived veracity of information were instrumental concepts in determining one's perception, and thus subsequent treatment and assimilation of such information for one's knowledge of COVID-19 or the onward propagation to their social networks. These findings have implications for how policymakers and health authorities communicate with the public and deal with fake health information in the context of COVID-19.

Indexed as

coronavirusCOVID-19health communicationhealth informationinfodemicinformation qualitymisinformationmobile healthonline health informationSARS-CoV-2SingaporesmartphoneWhatsApp

Identifiers

PMID36099011
PMCPMC9683527
OpenAlexW4295435784

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.