ArticleJAMA network open2023
Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media by Physicians in the US.
Article in JAMA network open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 37 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
37 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Development of a Conceptual Framework of Health Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Systematic Review of Reviews.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2025Pooled it
- Health Information Adoption Among Patients With Chronic Disease in China: Qualitative Interview Study of Patient-Platform Coshaping.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in infection surveillance: Data integration, applications and future directions.Biomedical journal · 2026Review
- The Quality of Evidence of and Engagement With Video Medical Claims.JAMA network open · 2026Article
- Strengthening the organizational health literacy capacity of community-based organizations to support COVID-19 precautionary behaviors in marginalized communities.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Factors associated with patient adherence to medical recommendations during a health crisis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Fear and Medical Misinformation Regarding Risk of Progression or Recurrence Among Patients with Breast Cancer.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- "Make America Healthy Again" will make the world sicker : The public health policies of the US administration will have dire results for national and global health.EMBO reports · 2025Article
- Article
- U.S. trust in physicians as key public health messengers during the H5N1 avian influenza outbreak.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Article
- Policy stakeholders' perspectives and use of data, research evidence, and misinformation in three counties in California, USA during the COVID-19 pandemic, 2020-2022.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Quality and reliability of pediatric pneumonia related short videos on mainstream platforms: cross-sectional study.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Perceived medical disinformation and public trust: Commentary on Grimes and Greenhalgh (2024).Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2025Article
- Broadband internet access as a social determinant of health in the early COVID-19 pandemic in U.S. counties.SSM - population health · 2025Article
- A Critical Juncture for Drug Information and Evidence-Based Voices.The journal of pediatric pharmacology and therapeutics : JPPT : the official journal of PPAG · 2025Article
- Nurses' attitudes about RSV vaccination for pregnant women and infants: Evidence from a cross-sectional survey.PloS one · 2025Article
- Evaluating the quality of educational TikTok videos on diabetic retinopathy: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Pharmacovigilance in the digital age: gaining insight from social media data.Experimental biology and medicine (Maywood, N.J.) · 2025Review
- Consulting "Dr. Google": how the digital search for internet health information influences doctor-patient relationship.Cadernos de saude publica · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Importance: Approximately one-third of the more than 1 100 000 confirmed COVID-19-related deaths as of January 18, 2023, were considered preventable if public health recommendations had been followed. Physicians' propagation of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other internet-based platforms has raised professional, public health, and ethical concerns. Objective: To characterize (1) the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians after vaccines became available, (2) the online platforms used, and (3) the characteristics of the physicians spreading misinformation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Using US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection during the study window to define misinformation, structured searches of high-use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Parler, and YouTube) and news sources (The New York Times, National Public Radio) were conducted to identify COVID-19 misinformation communicated by US-based physicians between January 2021 and December 2022. Physicians' state of licensure and medical specialty were identified. The number of followers for each physician on 4 major platforms was extracted to estimate reach and qualitative content analysis of the messages was performed. Main Outcomes and Measures: Outcome measures included categories of COVID-19 misinformation propagated, the number and traits of physicians engaged in misinformation propagation, and the type of online media channels used to propagate misinformation and potential reach. Results: The propagation of COVID-19 misinformation was attributed to 52 physicians in 28 different specialties across all regions of the country. General misinformation categories included vaccines, medication, masks, and other (ie, conspiracy theories). Forty-two physicians (80.8%) posted vaccine misinformation, 40 (76.9%) propagated information in more than 1 category, and 20 (38.5%) posted misinformation on 5 or more platforms. Major themes identified included (1) disputing vaccine safety and effectiveness, (2) promoting medical treatments lacking scientific evidence and/or US Food and Drug Administration approval, (3) disputing mask-wearing effectiveness, and (4) other (unsubstantiated claims, eg, virus origin, government lies, and other conspiracy theories). Conclusions and Relevance: In this mixed-methods study of US physician propagation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media, results suggest widespread, inaccurate, and potentially harmful assertions made by physicians across the country who represented a range of subspecialties. Further research is needed to assess the extent of the potential harms associated with physician propagation of misinformation, the motivations for these behaviors, and potential legal and professional recourse to improve accountability for misinformation propagation.
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.