Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39847418›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025

Predicting User Engagement in Health Misinformation Correction on Social Media Platforms in Taiwan: Content Analysis and Text Mining Study.

Hsin-Yu Kuo, Su-Yen Chen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. 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

2 authors.

Hsin-Yu Kuo *Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6347-388X
Su-Yen Chen *Institute of Learning Sciences and Technologies, National Tsing Hua University, Hsinchu, Taiwan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1066-6650

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundHealth misinformation undermines responses to health crises, with social media amplifying the issue. Although organizations work to correct misinformation, challenges persist due to reasons such as the difficulty of effectively sharing corrections and information being overwhelming. At the same time, social media offers valuable interactive data, enabling researchers to analyze user engagement with health misinformation corrections and refine content design strategies.

objectiveThis study aimed to identify the attributes of correction posts and user engagement and investigate (1) the trend of user engagement with health misinformation correction during 3 years of the COVID-19 pandemic; (2) the relationship between post attributes and user engagement in sharing and reactions; and (3) the content generated by user comments serving as additional information attached to the post, affecting user engagement in sharing and reactions.

methodsData were collected from the Facebook pages of a fact-checking organization and a health agency from January 2020 to December 2022. A total of 1424 posts and 67,378 corresponding comments were analyzed. The posts were manually annotated by developing a research framework based on the fuzzy-trace theory, categorizing information into "gist" and "verbatim" representations. Three types of gist representations were examined: risk (risks associated with misinformation), awareness (awareness of misinformation), and value (value in health promotion). Furthermore, 3 types of verbatim representations were identified: numeric (numeric and statistical bases for correction), authority (authority from experts, scholars, or institutions), and facts (facts with varying levels of detail). The basic metrics of user engagement included shares, reactions, and comments as the primary dependent variables. Moreover, this study examined user comments and classified engagement as cognitive (knowledge-based, critical, and bias-based) or emotional (positive, negative, and neutral). Statistical analyses were performed to explore the impact of post attributes on user engagement.

resultsOn the basis of the results of the regression analysis, risk (β=.07; P=.001), awareness (β=.09; P<.001), and facts (β=.14; P<.001) predicted higher shares; awareness (β=.07; P=.001) and facts (β=.24; P<.001) increased reactions; and awareness (β=.06; P=.005), numeric representations (β=.06; P=.02), and facts (β=.19; P<.001) increased comments. All 3 gist representations significantly predicted shares (risk: β=.08; P<.001, awareness: β=.08; P<.001, and value: β=.06; P<.001) and reactions (risk: β=.04; P=.007, awareness: β=.06; P<.001, and value: β=.05; P<.001) when considering comment content. In addition, comments with bias-based engagement (β=-.11; P=.001) negatively predicted shares. Generally, posts providing gist attributes, especially awareness of misinformation, were beneficial for user engagement in misinformation correction.

conclusionsThis study enriches the theoretical understanding of the relationship between post attributes and user engagement within web-based communication efforts to correct health misinformation. These findings provide a foundation for designing more effective content approaches to combat misinformation and strengthen public health communication.

Indexed as

CommunicationCOVID-19Data MiningSocial MediaHumansSARS-CoV-2Taiwancontent analysisfact-checkingfuzzy-trace theoryhealth communicationhealth misinformationlarge language modelsmisinformation correctionsocial mediatext mininguser engagement

Identifiers

PMID39847418
PMCPMC11803327

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.