Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39167790›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2024

A Comprehensive Analysis of COVID-19 Misinformation, Public Health Impacts, and Communication Strategies: Scoping Review.

Sezer Kisa, Adnan Kisa

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 55 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
55citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Key factors for promoting protective behaviours in future pandemics: an umbrella review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

2 authors.

Sezer Kisa *Department of Nursing and Health Promotion, Faculty of Health Sciences, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0009-0004-5624-6656
Adnan Kisa *Department of Health and Exercise, School of Health Sciences, Kristiania University College, Oslo, Norway.ORCID 0000-0001-7825-3436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic was marked by an infodemic, characterized by the rapid spread of both accurate and false information, which significantly affected public health. This infodemic led to confusion, mistrust in health authorities, noncompliance with health guidelines, and engagement in risky health behaviors. Understanding the dynamics of misinformation during the pandemic is crucial for developing effective public health communication strategies.

objectiveThis comprehensive analysis aimed to examine the complexities of COVID-19 misinformation. Specifically, it sought to identify the sources and themes of misinformation, the target audiences most affected, and the effectiveness of various public health communication strategies in mitigating misinformation.

methodsThis scoping review used the MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, and Scopus databases to identify relevant studies. An established, methodical framework for scoping reviews was used to review literature published between December 2019 and September 2023. The inclusion criteria focused on peer-reviewed studies published in English that address COVID-19 misinformation and its sources, themes, and target audiences, as well as the effectiveness of public health communication strategies.

resultsThe scoping review identified that misinformation significantly impacted mental health, vaccine hesitancy, and health care decision-making. Social media and traditional media were major conduits for spreading misinformation. Key misinformation themes included the origins of the virus, ineffective treatments, and misunderstandings about public health measures. Misinformation sources ranged from social media platforms to traditional media outlets and informal networks. The impact of misinformation was found to vary across different regions and demographic groups, with vulnerable populations being disproportionately affected. Effective strategies to counter misinformation included enhancing health literacy; using digital technology; promoting clear, authoritative communication; and implementing fact-checking mechanisms. In addition, community engagement and targeted health campaigns played a crucial role in addressing misinformation.

conclusionsThe review emphasizes the critical need for accurate and consistent messaging to combat misinformation. Cooperative efforts among policy makers, health professionals, and communication experts are essential for developing effective interventions. Addressing the infodemic is vital for building a well-informed, health-literate society capable of handling misinformation in future global health crises. The study provides valuable insights into the dynamics of misinformation and highlights the importance of robust public health communication strategies. These findings can guide future efforts to mitigate the impact of misinformation during health emergencies.

Indexed as

CommunicationCOVID-19Public HealthHealth CommunicationHumansPandemicsSARS-CoV-2communication strategiesCOVID-19infodemicmisinformationpublic health

Identifiers

PMID39167790
PMCPMC11375383

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.