ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2023
The "Loci" of Misinformation and Its Correction in Peer- and Expert-Led Online Communities for Mental Health: Content Analysis.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- A Typology of Moderator Practices and Community Guidelines in Online Mental Health Communities to Establish a Framework for Digital Safety: Systematized Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Review
- Dual-Source Retrieval-Augmented Generation Chatbot for Women's Health (HerCare): Design and Multimethod Evaluation Study.JMIR formative research · 2026Article
- Pediatric Headache in the Age of Social Media: A Topical Review.Current pain and headache reports · 2026Review
- Cyberchondria and complexity: a systems-level exploration of anxiety and informational instability in the digital age.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Review
- Sources of reproductive health information and their associations with self-reported contraceptive familiarity and education needs among female college students: a cross-sectional study in China.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Evaluating website resources shared online amongst women with intimate partner violence experiences: analysis of an online health community.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Evolving perceptions of treatment helpfulness across mental illnesses in Singapore: 8-year comparison using nationally representative samples.BJPsych open · 2025Article
- Understanding How Discourse Themes in an Online Mental Health Community on Twitter/X Drive Varied Population-Specific Empowerment Processes in Alignment With Global Standards: A Qualitative Analysis of #BipolarClub.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Trust in doctors, social support, and belief in COVID-19 misinformation.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Clusters of Patient Empowerment and Mental Health Literacy Differentiate Professional Help-Seeking Attitudes in Online Mental Health Communities Users.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2025Article
- Predicting User Engagement in Health Misinformation Correction on Social Media Platforms in Taiwan: Content Analysis and Text Mining Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Buffering against exposure to mental health misinformation in online communities on Facebook: the interplay of depression literacy and expert moderation.BMC public health · 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMental health problems are recognized as a pressing public health issue, and an increasing number of individuals are turning to online communities for mental health to search for information and support. Although these virtual platforms have the potential to provide emotional support and access to anecdotal experiences, they can also present users with large amounts of potentially inaccurate information. Despite the importance of this issue, limited research has been conducted, especially on the differences that might emerge due to the type of content moderation of online communities: peer-led or expert-led.
objectiveWe aim to fill this gap by examining the prevalence, the communicative context, and the persistence of mental health misinformation on Facebook online communities for mental health, with a focus on understanding the mechanisms that enable effective correction of inaccurate information and differences between expert-led and peer-led groups.
methodsWe conducted a content analysis of 1534 statements (from 144 threads) in 2 Italian-speaking Facebook groups.
resultsThe study found that an alarming number of comments (26.1%) contained medically inaccurate information. Furthermore, nearly 60% of the threads presented at least one misinformation statement without any correction attempt. Moderators were more likely to correct misinformation than members; however, they were not immune to posting content containing misinformation, which was an unexpected finding. Discussions about aspects of treatment (including side effects or treatment interruption) significantly increased the probability of encountering misinformation. Additionally, the study found that misinformation produced in the comments of a thread, rather than as the first post, had a lower probability of being corrected, particularly in peer-led communities.
conclusionsThe high prevalence of misinformation in online communities, particularly when left uncorrected, underscores the importance of conducting additional research to identify effective mechanisms to prevent its spread. This is especially important given the study's finding that misinformation tends to be more prevalent around specific "loci" of discussion that, once identified, can serve as a starting point to develop strategies for preventing and correcting misinformation within them.
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.