We need a gold standard for randomised control trials studying misinformation and vaccine hesitancy on social media

Ethical Considerations in Infodemic Management: Systematic Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

During health emergencies, effective infodemic management has become a paramount challenge. A new era marked by a rapidly changing information ecosystem, combined with the widespread dissemination of misinformation and disinformation, has magnified the complexity of the issue. For infodemic management measures to be effective, acceptable, and trustworthy, a robust framework of ethical considerations is needed.

OBJECTIVE

This systematic scoping review aims to identify and analyze ethical considerations and procedural principles relevant to infodemic management, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of these practices and increasing trust in stakeholders performing infodemic management practices with the goal of safeguarding public health.

METHODS

The review involved a comprehensive examination of the literature related to ethical considerations in infodemic management from 2002 to 2022, drawing from publications in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Policy documents and relevant material were included in the search strategy. Papers were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and core thematic areas were systematically identified and categorized following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We analyzed the literature to identify substantive ethical principles that were crucial for guiding actions in the realms of infodemic management and social listening, as well as related procedural ethical principles. In this review, we consider ethical principles that are extensively deliberated upon in the literature, such as equity, justice, or respect for autonomy. However, we acknowledge the existence and relevance of procedural practices, which we also consider as ethical principles or practices that, when implemented, enhance the efficacy of infodemic management while ensuring the respect of substantive ethical principles.

RESULTS

Drawing from 103 publications, the review yielded several key findings related to ethical principles, approaches, and guidelines for practice in the context of infodemic management. Community engagement, empowerment through education, and inclusivity emerged as procedural principles and practices that enhance the quality and effectiveness of communication and social listening efforts, fostering trust, a key emerging theme and crucial ethical principle. The review also emphasized the significance of transparency, privacy, and cybersecurity in data collection.

CONCLUSIONS

This review underscores the pivotal role of ethics in bolstering the efficacy of infodemic management. From the analyzed body of literature, it becomes evident that ethical considerations serve as essential instruments for cultivating trust and credibility while also facilitating the medium-term and long-term viability of infodemic management approaches.

Quantifying the impact of misinformation and vaccine-skeptical content on Facebook

Low uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine in the US has been widely attributed to social media misinformation. To evaluate this claim, we introduce a framework combining lab experiments (total N = 18,725), crowdsourcing, and machine learning to estimate the causal effect of 13,206 vaccine-related URLs on the vaccination intentions of US Facebook users (N ≈ 233 million). We estimate that the impact of unflagged content that nonetheless encouraged vaccine skepticism was 46-fold greater than that of misinformation flagged by fact-checkers. Although misinformation reduced predicted vaccination intentions significantly more than unflagged vaccine content when viewed, Facebook users' exposure to flagged content was limited. In contrast, unflagged stories highlighting rare deaths after vaccination were among Facebook's most-viewed stories. Our work emphasizes the need to scrutinize factually accurate but potentially misleading content in addition to outright falsehoods.