Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38687591›Full record

ArticleJMIR infodemiology2024

Perceptions of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Cross-Sectional Survey Study.

Anna Gaysynsky, Nicole Senft Everson, Kathryn Heley, Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR infodemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Misinformation and women's health: Rebuilding trust in evidence-based care.International journal of gynaecology and obstetrics: the official organ of the International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics · 2026
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

4 authors.

Anna GaysynskyHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-5612-5572
Nicole Senft EversonHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3617-7276
Kathryn HeleyHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-3074-2294
Wen-Ying Sylvia ChouHealth Communication and Informatics Research Branch, Behavioral Research Program, National Cancer Institute, Rockville, MD, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-9140-6094

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth misinformation on social media can negatively affect knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors, undermining clinical care and public health efforts. Therefore, it is vital to better understand the public's experience with health misinformation on social media.

objectiveThe goal of this analysis was to examine perceptions of the social media information environment and identify associations between health misinformation perceptions and health communication behaviors among US adults.

methodsAnalyses used data from the 2022 Health Information National Trends Survey (N=6252). Weighted unadjusted proportions described respondents' perceptions of the amount of false or misleading health information on social media ("perceived misinformation amount") and how difficult it is to discern true from false information on social media ("perceived discernment difficulty"). Weighted multivariable logistic regressions examined (1) associations of sociodemographic characteristics and subjective literacy measures with misinformation perceptions and (2) relationships between misinformation perceptions and health communication behaviors (ie, sharing personal or general health information on social media and using social media information in health decisions or in discussions with health care providers).

resultsOver one-third of social media users (35.61%) perceived high levels of health misinformation, and approximately two-thirds (66.56%) reported high perceived discernment difficulty. Odds of perceiving high amounts of misinformation were lower among non-Hispanic Black/African American (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 0.407, 95% CI 0.282-0.587) and Hispanic (aOR 0.610, 95% CI 0.449-0.831) individuals compared to White individuals. Those with lower subjective health literacy were less likely to report high perceived misinformation amount (aOR 0.602, 95% CI 0.374-0.970), whereas those with lower subjective digital literacy were more likely to report high perceived misinformation amount (aOR 1.775, 95% CI 1.400-2.251). Compared to White individuals, Hispanic individuals had lower odds of reporting high discernment difficulty (aOR 0.620, 95% CI 0.462-0.831). Those with lower subjective digital literacy (aOR 1.873, 95% CI 1.478-2.374) or numeracy (aOR 1.465, 95% CI 1.047-2.049) were more likely to report high discernment difficulty. High perceived misinformation amount was associated with lower odds of sharing general health information on social media (aOR 0.742, 95% CI 0.568-0.968), using social media information to make health decisions (aOR 0.273, 95% CI 0.156-0.479), and using social media information in discussions with health care providers (aOR 0.460, 95% CI 0.323-0.655). High perceived discernment difficulty was associated with higher odds of using social media information in health decisions (aOR 1.724, 95% CI 1.208-2.460) and health care provider discussions (aOR 1.389, 95% CI 1.035-1.864).

conclusionsPerceptions of high health misinformation prevalence and discernment difficulty are widespread among social media users, and each has unique associations with sociodemographic characteristics, literacy, and health communication behaviors. These insights can help inform future health communication interventions.

Indexed as

Health CommunicationSocial MediaAdolescentAdultAgedCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHealth LiteracyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and QuestionnairesUnited StatesYoung Adulthealth communicationhealth literacymisinformationpatient-provider communicationsocial media

Identifiers

PMID38687591
PMCPMC11094599

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.