ArticleHealth information and libraries journal2025
Evaluating inclusiveness and diversity in health misinformation correction research: A scoping review.
Article in Health information and libraries journal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluating inclusiveness and diversity in health misinformation correction research: A scoping review.Health information and libraries journal · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe inclusion of marginalized populations in health information research is crucial for ensuring equitable health outcomes and addressing systemic disparities. However, underrepresentation of these groups remains a significant issue, particularly in health misinformation correction research.
objectivesWe aimed to evaluate the inclusion and diversity of health misinformation correction studies in terms of their sample characteristics, correction message features, and study characteristics.
methodsWe conducted a scoping review and identified 192 empirical studies from 158 publications that met our inclusion criteria. DISCUSSION: The results indicate that the available literature on health misinformation correction has not adequately incorporated the inclusion and diversity of marginalized populations. This gap persists across various essential research elements, such as sample characteristics and correction message features.
conclusionsThere is a critical need to prioritize inclusion and diversity in health misinformation correction research. Addressing this gap will contribute to a more equitable and inclusive scientific process, ensuring the perspectives of diverse populations are considered and included.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.