Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39211903›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in public health2024

Strategies and bottlenecks to tackle infodemic in public health: a scoping review.

Andrea Gentili, Leonardo Villani, Tommaso Osti, Valerio Flavio Corona, Angelica Val Gris, Andrea Zaino, Michele Bonacquisti, Lucia De Maio, Vincenzo Solimene, Maria Rosaria Gualano and 3 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. 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

13 authors.

Andrea Gentili *Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Leonardo Villani *Section of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Tommaso OstiSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Valerio Flavio CoronaSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Angelica Val GrisSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Andrea ZainoSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Michele BonacquistiSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Lucia De MaioSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Vincenzo SolimeneSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Maria Rosaria GualanoSaint Camillus International University of Health Sciences, UniCamillus, Rome, Italy.
Carlo FavarettiLeadership in Medicine Research Center, Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Walter RicciardiSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.
Fidelia CasciniSection of Hygiene, University Department of Life Sciences and Public Health-Università Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, Rome, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The World Health Organization defines "infodemic" as the phenomenon of an uncontrolled spread of information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak, causing confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. The aim of this scoping review is to examine international evidence and identify strategies and bottlenecks to tackle health-related fake news. Methods: We performed a scoping review of the literature from 1 January 2018 to 26 January 2023 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases. We also performed a search of grey literature on institutional websites. The research question has been defined according to the PCC (population, concept, and context) mnemonic for constructing research questions in scoping reviews. Results: The overall research in the scientific databases yielded a total of 5,516 records. After removing duplicates, and screening the titles, abstracts, and full texts, we included 21 articles from scientific literature. Moreover, 5 documents were retrieved from institutional websites. Based on their content, we decided to group recommendations and bottlenecks into five different and well-defined areas of intervention, which we called strategies: "foster proper communication through the collaboration between science and social media companies and users," "institutional and regulatory interventions," "check and debunking," "increase health literacy," and "surveillance and monitoring through new digital tools." Conclusion: The multidisciplinary creation of standardized toolkits that collect recommendations from the literature and institutions can provide a valid solution to limit the infodemic, increasing the health education of both citizens and health professionals, providing the knowledge to recognize fake news, as well as supporting the creation and validation of AI tools aimed at prebunking and debunking.

Indexed as

Public HealthDeceptionHumansSocial Mediabottleneckscommunicationdisinformationinfodemicmisinformationpublic healthrecommendations

Identifiers

PMID39211903
PMCPMC11359844

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.