Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38980714›Full record

ArticleJMIR formative research2024

Social Media Authentication and Users' Assessments of Health Information: Random Assignment Survey Experiment.

Stephen Neely, Kaila Witkowski

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR formative research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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

2 authors.

Stephen NeelySchool of Public Affairs, University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9802-0859
Kaila WitkowskiDepartment of Public Administration, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6548-9431

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn an effort to signal the authenticity of user accounts, social networking sites (SNSs) such as Facebook and X, formerly known as Twitter, use visual heuristics (blue checkmarks) to signify whether accounts are verified. While these verification badges are generally well recognized (and often coveted) by SNS users, relatively little is known about how they affect users' perceptions of accuracy or their likelihood of engaging with web-based information. This is particularly true in the case of information posted by medical experts and health care professionals.

objectiveThis study aims to use an experimental survey design to assess the effect of these verification badges on SNS users' assessments of information accuracy as well as their proclivity to recirculate health information or follow verified medical experts in their social network.

methodsA survey experiment using random assignment was conducted on a representative sample of 534 adult SNS users in Florida, United States. A total of 2 separate experimental scenarios exposed users to vaccine-related posts from verified medical experts on X. In each case, the original post contained a platform-issued verification badge (treatment group), which was subsequently edited out of the image as an experimental control. For each scenario, respondents were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group, and responses to 3 follow-up questions were assessed through a series of chi-square analyses and 2 logit regression models. Responses were fielded using a stratified quota sampling approach to ensure representativeness of the state's population based on age, sex, race, ethnicity, and political affiliation.

resultsUsers' assessments of information accuracy were not significantly impacted by the presence or absence of verification badges, and users exposed to the experimental treatment (verification badge) were not any more likely to repost the message or follow the author. While verification badges did not influence users' assessments or subsequent behaviors, reliance on social media for health-related information and political affiliation were substantial predictors of accuracy assessments in both experimental scenarios. In scenario 1, which included a post addressing COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, users who relied on social media "a great deal" for health information were 2 times more likely to assess the post as accurate (odds ratio 2.033, 95% CI 1.129-3.661; P=.01). In scenario 2, which included a post about measles vaccines, registered Republicans were nearly 6 times less likely to assess the post as accurate (odds ratio 0.171, 95% CI 0.097-0.299; P<.001).

conclusionsFor health professionals and medical experts wishing to leverage social networks to combat misinformation and spread reliable health-related content, account verification appears to offer little by way of added value. On the basis of prior research, other heuristics and communication strategies are likely to yield better results.

Indexed as

health communicationsocial mediatrustvaccine efficacyverification markers

Identifiers

PMID38980714
PMCPMC11267113

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.