Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37862066›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology2023

Sharing Reliable COVID-19 Information and Countering Misinformation: In-Depth Interviews With Information Advocates.

Alexis M Koskan, Shalini Sivanandam, Kristy Roschke, Jonathan Irby, Deborah L Helitzer, Bradley Doebbeling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

6 authors.

Alexis M Koskan *College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7678-1008
Shalini Sivanandam *College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0009-0009-5813-1787
Kristy Roschke *Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0009-0007-5134-9172
Jonathan Irby *College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0009-0000-7182-2587
Deborah L Helitzer *College of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-8334-2820
Bradley DoebbelingCollege of Health Solutions, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3504-3468

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe rampant spread of misinformation about COVID-19 has been linked to a lower uptake of preventive behaviors such as vaccination. Some individuals, however, have been able to resist believing in COVID-19 misinformation. Further, some have acted as information advocates, spreading accurate information and combating misinformation about the pandemic.

objectiveThis work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices.

methodsTo identify participants for this study, we used outcomes of survey research of a national sample of 1498 adults to find individuals who scored a perfect or near-perfect score on COVID-19 knowledge questions and who also self-reported actively sharing or responding to news information within the past week. Among this subsample, we selected a diverse sample of 25 individuals to participate in a 1-time, phone-based, semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the team conducted an inductive thematic analysis.

resultsParticipants reported trusting in science, data-driven sources, public health, medical experts, and organizations. They had mixed levels of trust in various social media sites to find reliable health information, noting distrust in particular sites such as Facebook (Meta Platforms) and more trust in specific accounts on Twitter (X Corp) and Reddit (Advance Publications). They reported relying on multiple sources of information to find facts instead of depending on their intuition and emotions to inform their perspectives about COVID-19. Participants determined the credibility of information by cross-referencing it, identifying information sources and their potential biases, clarifying information they were unclear about with health care providers, and using fact-checking sites to verify information. Most participants reported ignoring misinformation. Others, however, responded to misinformation by flagging, reporting, and responding to it on social media sites. Some described feeling more comfortable responding to misinformation in person than online. Participants' responses to misinformation posted on the internet depended on various factors, including their relationship to the individual posting the misinformation, their level of outrage in response to it, and how dangerous they perceived it could be if others acted on such information.

conclusionsThis research illustrates how well-informed US adults assess the credibility of COVID-19 information, how they share it, and how they respond to misinformation. It illustrates web-based and offline information practices and describes how the role of interpersonal relationships contributes to their preferences for acting on such information. Implications of our findings could help inform future training in health information literacy, interpersonal information advocacy, and organizational information advocacy. It is critical to continue working to share reliable health information and debunk misinformation, particularly since this information informs health behaviors.

Indexed as

COVID-19AdultBiological TransportEmotionsHealth BehaviorHumansInformation LiteracycoronavirusCOVID-19health communicationinfodemicmisinformationpandemicpublic healthqualitative researchsocial media

Identifiers

PMID37862066
PMCPMC10625073

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.