Medical misinformation in mass and social media: An urgent call for action, especially during epidemics

The Use of Social Media to Express and Manage Medical Uncertainty in Dyskeratosis Congenita: Content Analysis

BACKGROUND

Social media has the potential to provide social support for rare disease communities; however, little is known about the use of social media for the expression of medical uncertainty, a common feature of rare diseases.

OBJECTIVE

This study aims to evaluate the expression of medical uncertainty on social media in the context of dyskeratosis congenita, a rare cancer-prone inherited bone marrow failure and telomere biology disorder (TBD).

METHODS

We performed a content analysis of uncertainty-related posts on Facebook and Twitter managed by Team Telomere, a patient advocacy group for this rare disease. We assessed the frequency of uncertainty-related posts, uncertainty sources, issues, and management and associations between uncertainty and social support.

RESULTS

Across all TBD social media platforms, 45.98% (1269/2760) of posts were uncertainty related. Uncertainty-related posts authored by Team Telomere on Twitter focused on scientific (306/434, 70.5%) or personal (230/434, 53%) issues and reflected uncertainty arising from probability, ambiguity, or complexity. Uncertainty-related posts in conversations among patients and caregivers in the Facebook community group focused on scientific (429/511, 84%), personal (157/511, 30.7%), and practical (114/511, 22.3%) issues, many of which were related to prognostic unknowns. Both platforms suggested uncertainty management strategies that focused on information sharing and community building. Posts reflecting response-focused uncertainty management strategies (eg, emotional regulation) were more frequent on Twitter compared with the Facebook community group (χ21=3.9; P=.05), whereas posts reflecting uncertainty-focused management strategies (eg, ordering information) were more frequent in the Facebook community group compared with Twitter (χ21=55.1; P<.001). In the Facebook community group, only 36% (184/511) of members created posts during the study period, and those who created posts did so with a low frequency (median 3, IQR 1-7 posts). Analysis of post creator characteristics suggested that most users of TBD social media are White, female, and parents of patients with dyskeratosis congenita.

CONCLUSIONS

Although uncertainty is a pervasive and multifactorial issue in TBDs, our findings suggest that the discussion of medical uncertainty on TBD social media is largely limited to brief exchanges about scientific, personal, or practical issues rather than ongoing supportive conversation. The nature of uncertainty-related conversations also varied by user group: patients and caregivers used social media primarily to discuss scientific uncertainties (eg, regarding prognosis), form social connections, or exchange advice on accessing and organizing medical care, whereas Team Telomere used social media to express scientific and personal issues of uncertainty and to address the emotional impact of uncertainty. The higher involvement of female parents on TBD social media suggests a potentially greater burden of uncertainty management among mothers compared with other groups. Further research is needed to understand the dynamics of social media engagement to manage medical uncertainty in the TBD community.

Perceptions of blame on social media during the coronavirus pandemic

The outbreak of the coronavirus (COVID-19) disease is overwhelming resources, economies and countries around the world. Millions of people have been infected and hundreds of thousands have succumbed to the virus. Research regarding the coronavirus pandemic is published every day. However, there is limited discourse regarding societal perception. Thus, this paper examines blame attribution concerning the origin and propagation of the coronavirus crisis according to public perception. Specifically, data were extracted from the social media platform Twitter concerning the coronavirus during the early stages of the outbreak and further investigated using thematic analysis. The findings revealed the public predominantly blames national governments for the coronavirus pandemic. In addition, the results documented the explosion of conspiracy theories among social media users regarding the virus' origin. In the early stages of the pandemic, the blame tendency was most frequent to conspiracy theories and restriction of information from the government, whilst in the later months, responsibility had shifted to political leaders and the media. The findings indicate an emerging government mistrust that may result in disregard of preventive health behaviours and the amplification of conspiracy theories, and an evolving dynamic of blame. This study argues for a transparent, continuing dialogue between governments and the public to stop the spread of the coronavirus.

COVID-19-Induced Fear in Infoveillance Studies: Pilot Meta-analysis Study of Preliminary Results

Background

The World Health Organization named the phenomenon of misinformation spread through social media as an “infodemic” and recognized the need to curb it. Misinformation infodemics undermine not only population safety but also compliance to the suggestions and prophylactic measures recommended during pandemics.

Objective

The aim of this pilot study is to review the impact of social media on general population fear in “infoveillance” studies during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Methods

The PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) protocol was followed, and 6 out of 20 studies were retrieved, meta-analyzed, and had their findings presented in the form of a forest plot.

Results

The summary random and significant event rate was 0.298 (95% CI 0.213-0.400), suggesting that social media–circulated misinformation related to COVID-19 triggered public fear and other psychological manifestations. These findings merit special attention by public health authorities.

Conclusions

Infodemiology and infoveillance are valid tools in the hands of epidemiologists to help prevent dissemination of false information, which has potentially damaging effects.

Tracing open data in emergencies: The case of the COVID-19 pandemic

BACKGROUND

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic constitutes an ongoing, burning Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). In 2015, the World Health Organization adopted an open data policy recommendation in such situations.

OBJECTIVES

The present cross-sectional meta-research study aimed to assess the availability of open data and metrics of articles pertaining to the COVID-19 outbreak in five high-impact journals.

METHODS

All articles regarding the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), published in five high-impact journals (Ann Intern Med, BMJ, JAMA, NEJM and Lancet) until March 14, 2020 were retrieved. Metadata (namely the type of article, number of authors, number of patients, citations, errata, news and social media mentions) were extracted for each article in each journal in a systematic way. Google Scholar and Scopus were used for citations and author metrics respectively, and Altmetrics and PlumX were used for news and social media mentions retrieval. The degree of adherence to the PHEIC open data call was also evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 140 articles were published until March 14, 2020, mostly opinion papers. Sixteen errata followed these publications. The number of authors in each article ranged from 1 to 63, whereas the number of patients with a laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection reached 2645. Extensive hyperauthorship was evident among case studies. The impact of these publications reached a total of 4210 cumulative crude citations and 342 790 news and social media mentions. Only one publication (0.7%) provided complete open data, while 32 (22.9%) included patient data.

CONCLUSIONS

Even though a large number of manuscripts was produced since the pandemic, availability of open data remains restricted.