ArticlePloS one2022
Misinformation about medication during the COVID- 19 pandemic: A perspective of medical staff.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 18 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pediatric providers' views on participating in an HPV Vaccine Quality Improvement Intervention: a qualitative analysis.BMC pediatrics · 2024Article
- Patterns of self-medication and intention to seek pharmacist guidance among older adults during the COVID-19 pandemic in Macao: a cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Article
- Influence of Clinical Factors on the Quality of Life in Romanian People with Epilepsy-A Follow-Up Study in Real-Life Clinical Practice.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare professionals had to face numerous challenges during the pandemic, their professional activity being influenced not only by the virus, but also by the spread of medical misinformation. In this regard, we aimed to analyze, from the perspective of medical staff, the way medical and non-medical information about the virus was communicated during the pandemic to encourage the development of future research or interventions in order to raise awareness about the way misinformation affected medical staff. METHODS AND
findingsThe study was conducted on Romanian healthcare professionals. They were asked to answer to a questionnaire and the sample of the research includes 536 respondents. The findings revealed that most respondents stated that information about alternative treatments against the virus affected the credibility of health professionals, and that younger professionals believed to a greater extent that trust in doctors was affected. The research also showed that respondents were well informed about the drugs used in clinical trials in order to treat the virus.
conclusionsHealthcare professionals declared that the spread of misinformation regarding alternative treatments, affected their credibility and the relationship with their patients. Healthcare professionals had knowledge about the drugs used in clinical trials, and they acknowledged the role of social media in spreading medical misinformation. However, younger professionals also believed that social media could be used to share official information about the virus.
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.