ArticlePloS one2024
Discovering why people believe disinformation about healthcare.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Strategies for tackling fake news in healthcare: a complex approach from a nursing perspective.Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da U S P · 2026Article
- Misinformation and disinformation undermine progress in pediatric research: challenges and solutions.Pediatric research · 2025Article
- [Misinformation and disinformation about dietary supplements in social media: limiting the risks, seizing the opportunities, and shaping structures].Bundesgesundheitsblatt, Gesundheitsforschung, Gesundheitsschutz · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Disinformation-false information intended to cause harm or for profit-is pervasive. While disinformation exists in several domains, one area with great potential for personal harm from disinformation is healthcare. The amount of disinformation about health issues on social media has grown dramatically over the past several years, particularly in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The study described in this paper sought to determine the characteristics of multimedia social network posts that lead them to believe and potentially act on healthcare disinformation. The study was conducted in a neuroscience laboratory in early 2022. Twenty-six study participants each viewed a series of 20 either honest or dishonest social media posts, dealing with various aspects of healthcare. They were asked to determine if the posts were true or false and then to provide the reasoning behind their choices. Participant gaze was captured through eye tracking technology and investigated through "area of interest" analysis. This approach has the potential to discover the elements of disinformation that help convince the viewer a given post is true. Participants detected the true nature of the posts they were exposed to 69% of the time. Overall, the source of the post, whether its claims seemed reasonable, and the look and feel of the post were the most important reasons they cited for determining whether it was true or false. Based on the eye tracking data collected, the factors most associated with successfully detecting disinformation were the total number of fixations on key words and the total number of revisits to source information. The findings suggest the outlines of generalizations about why people believe online disinformation, suggesting a basis for the development of mid-range theory.
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.