Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36684016›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychiatry2022

Psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media: A scoping review.

Paweł Gwiaździński, Aleksander B Gundersen, Michal Piksa, Izabela Krysińska, Jonas R Kunst, Karolina Noworyta, Agata Olejniuk, Mikołaj Morzy, Rafal Rygula, Tomi Wójtowicz and 1 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing 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

13 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Health Information Disorders Models: A Scoping Review.Iranian journal of nursing and midwifery research
    Article
  13. Health Misinformation Detection: Approaches, Challenges and Opportunities.Inquiry : a journal of medical care organization, provision and financing
    Review
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

11 authors.

Paweł GwiaździńskiDepartment of Philosophy and Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.
Aleksander B GundersenDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Michal PiksaAffective Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology, Maj Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Izabela KrysińskaPoznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland.
Jonas R KunstDepartment of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway.
Karolina NoworytaAffective Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology, Maj Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Agata OlejniukPoznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland.
Mikołaj MorzyPoznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland.
Rafal RygulaAffective Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory, Department of Pharmacology, Maj Institute of Pharmacology of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Kraków, Poland.
Tomi WójtowiczPoznań University of Technology, Poznań, Poland.
Jan PiaseckiDepartment of Philosophy and Bioethics, Faculty of Health Sciences, Jagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The rise of social media users and the explosive growth in misinformation shared across social media platforms have become a serious threat to democratic discourse and public health. The mentioned implications have increased the demand for misinformation detection and intervention. To contribute to this challenge, we are presenting a systematic scoping review of psychological interventions countering misinformation in social media. The review was conducted to (i) identify and map evidence on psychological interventions countering misinformation, (ii) compare the viability of the interventions on social media, and (iii) provide guidelines for the development of effective interventions. Methods: A systematic search in three bibliographic databases (PubMed, Embase, and Scopus) and additional searches in Google Scholar and reference lists were conducted. Results: 3,561 records were identified, 75 of which met the eligibility criteria for the inclusion in the final review. The psychological interventions identified during the review can be classified into three categories distinguished by Kozyreva et al.: Boosting, Technocognition, and Nudging, and then into 15 types within these. Most of the studied interventions were not implemented and tested in a real social media environment but under strictly controlled settings or online crowdsourcing platforms. The presented feasibility assessment of implementation insights expressed qualitatively and with numerical scoring could guide the development of future interventions that can be successfully implemented on social media platforms. Discussion: The review provides the basis for further research on psychological interventions counteracting misinformation. Future research on interventions should aim to combine effective Technocognition and Nudging in the user experience of online services. Systematic review registration: [https://figshare.com/], identifier [https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14649432.v2].

Indexed as

Facebookmisinformationpsychological interventionsRedditscoping reviewsocial mediasystematic reviewTwitter

Identifiers

PMID36684016
PMCPMC9849948

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.