Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39052635›Full record

ArticlePloS one2024

Navigating persuasive strategies in online health misinformation: An interview study with older adults on misinformation management.

Wei Peng, Jingbo Meng, Barikisu Issaka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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

3 authors.

Wei PengDepartment of Media and Information, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-1576-4532
Jingbo MengSchool of Communication, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, United States of America.
Barikisu IssakaDepartment of Advertising and Public Relations, Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan, United States of America.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Online health misinformation commonly includes persuasive strategies that can easily deceive lay people. Yet, it is not well understood how individuals respond to misinformation with persuasive strategies at the moment of exposure. This study aims to address the research gap by exploring how and why older adults fall into the persuasive trap of online health misinformation and how they manage their encounters of online health misinformation. Using a think-aloud protocol, semi-structured interviews were conducted with twenty-nine older adults who were exposed to articles employing twelve groups of common persuasive strategies in online health misinformation. Thematic analysis of the transcripts revealed that some participants fell for the persuasive strategies, yet the same strategies were detected by others as cues to pin down misinformation. Based on the participants' own words, informational and individual factors as well as the interplay of these factors were identified as contributors to susceptibility to misinformation. Participants' strategies to manage misinformation for themselves and others were categorized. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Indexed as

CommunicationPersuasive CommunicationAgedAged, 80 and overFemaleHumansInternetInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle Aged

Identifiers

PMID39052635
PMCPMC11271879

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.