ArticleDigital health
Navigating the infodemic: A qualitative study of university students' information strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The role of social media in enhancing health awareness, social support and educational progress among university students in Oman during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey.Frontiers in sociology · 2026Article
- Understanding the preference of online health information seeking among college students using the best-worst scaling method.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: We aimed to study the strategies which university students developed for vetting information during the COVID-19 pandemic and associated infodemic. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 34 students, using a piloted topic guide which explored several areas of pandemic experiences, including students' use of media. Transcripts were analysed inductively following the thematic approach. Higher order themes were finalised following a coding exercise undertaken by two of the authors. Results: Participants were acutely aware of misinformation during the pandemic. They rated legacy news media (print and broadcast media with pre-Internet origins) higher than social media for reliable information about the pandemic. However, strikingly, not all legacy media were automatically trusted and not all social media were uniformly distrusted. Participants identified a set of mechanisms for establishing whether a piece of information was truthful and accurate. These mechanisms had four main focal points: (1) the source, (2) the message, (3) individual media literacy and (4) the trustworthiness of others. Despite possessing a critical awareness of misinformation, participants avoided posting anything in relation to the pandemic for fear of becoming the target of online abuse. Conclusions: In addition to underscoring the role of media literacy, our research foregrounds the need to attend to the importance of fostering media confidence. We define media confidence as the ability of digital media users to challenge and interrogate questionable or inaccurate information safe in the knowledge that there are adequate regulatory mechanisms in place to curb abuse, trolling and intimidation.
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.