ArticleHealthcare informatics research2022
Understanding the COVID-19 Infodemic: Analyzing User-Generated Online Information During a COVID-19 Outbreak in Vietnam.
Article in Healthcare informatics research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOnline misinformation has reached unprecedented levels during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This study analyzed the magnitude and sentiment dynamics of misinformation and unverified information about public health interventions during a COVID-19 outbreak in Da Nang, Vietnam, between July and September 2020.
methodsWe analyzed user-generated online information about five public health interventions during the Da Nang outbreak. We compared the volume, source, sentiment polarity, and engagements of online posts before, during, and after the outbreak using negative binomial and logistic regression, and assessed the content validity of the 500 most influential posts.
resultsMost of the 54,528 online posts included were generated during the outbreak (n = 46,035; 84.42%) and by online newspapers (n = 32,034; 58.75%). Among the 500 most influential posts, 316 (63.20%) contained genuine information, 10 (2.00%) contained misinformation, 152 (30.40%) were non-factual opinions, and 22 (4.40%) contained unverifiable information. All misinformation posts were made during the outbreak, mostly on social media, and were predominantly negative. Higher levels of engagement were observed for information that was unverifiable (incidence relative risk [IRR] = 2.83; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.33-0.62), posted during the outbreak (before: IRR = 0.15; 95% CI, 0.07-0.35; after: IRR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.34-0.63), and with negative sentiment (IRR = 1.84; 95% CI, 1.23-2.75). Negatively toned posts were more likely to be misinformation (odds ratio [OR] = 9.59; 95% CI, 1.20-76.70) or unverified (OR = 5.03; 95% CI, 1.66-15.24).
conclusionsMisinformation and unverified information during the outbreak showed clustering, with social media being particularly affected. This indepth assessment demonstrates the value of analyzing online "infodemics" to inform public health responses.
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.