Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39159456›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media-Challenges and Mitigation Before, During, and Beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Literature Review.

Dhouha Kbaier, Annemarie Kane, Mark McJury, Ian Kenny

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 49 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
49citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

49 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Community participation in responding to health misinformation.International journal for equity in health · 2026
    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.

Dhouha KbaierSchool of Computing and Communications, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-8338-6049
Annemarie KaneFaculty of Arts and Social Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0002-9898-2967
Mark McJurySchool of Physical Sciences, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0001-7625-8284
Ian KennySchool of Computing and Communications, The Open University, Milton Keynes, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-2487-803X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis scoping review accompanies our research study "The Experience of Health Professionals With Misinformation and Its Impact on Their Job Practice: Qualitative Interview Study." It surveys online health misinformation and is intended to provide an understanding of the communication context in which health professionals must operate.

objectiveOur objective was to illustrate the impact of social media in introducing additional sources of misinformation that impact health practitioners' ability to communicate effectively with their patients. In addition, we considered how the level of knowledge of practitioners mitigated the effect of misinformation and additional stress factors associated with dealing with outbreaks, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, that affect communication with patients.

methodsThis study used a 5-step scoping review methodology following Arksey and O'Malley's methodology to map relevant literature published in English between January 2012 and March 2024, focusing on health misinformation on social media platforms. We defined health misinformation as a false or misleading health-related claim that is not based on valid evidence or scientific knowledge. Electronic searches were performed on PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar. We included studies on the extent and impact of health misinformation in social media, mitigation strategies, and health practitioners' experiences of confronting health misinformation. Our independent reviewers identified relevant articles for data extraction.

resultsOur review synthesized findings from 70 sources on online health misinformation. It revealed a consensus regarding the significant problem of health misinformation disseminated on social network platforms. While users seek trustworthy sources of health information, they often lack adequate health and digital literacies, which is exacerbated by social and economic inequalities. Cultural contexts influence the reception of such misinformation, and health practitioners may be vulnerable, too. The effectiveness of online mitigation strategies like user correction and automatic detection are complicated by malicious actors and politicization. The role of health practitioners in this context is a challenging one. Although they are still best placed to combat health misinformation, this review identified stressors that create barriers to their abilities to do this well. Investment in health information management at local and global levels could enhance their capacity for effective communication with patients.

conclusionsThis scoping review underscores the significance of addressing online health misinformation, particularly in the postpandemic era. It highlights the necessity for a collaborative global interdisciplinary effort to ensure equitable access to accurate health information, thereby empowering health practitioners to effectively combat the impact of online health misinformation. Academic research will need to be disseminated into the public domain in a way that is accessible to the public. Without equipping populations with health and digital literacies, the prevalence of online health misinformation will continue to pose a threat to global public health efforts.

Indexed as

CommunicationCOVID-19PandemicsSARS-CoV-2Social MediaHealth PersonnelHumansPrevalenceantivaxxersCOVID-19health misinformationhealth professionalsinterventiononline health communitiespublic healthsocial mediavaccine hesitancy

Identifiers

PMID39159456
PMCPMC11369541

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.