1
|
Understanding the “infodemic”: social media news use, homogeneous online discussion, self-perceived media literacy and misperceptions about COVID-19. ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW 2022. [DOI: 10.1108/oir-06-2021-0305] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PurposeThis study has three main purposes: (1) to investigate the association between social media news use and misperceptions about COVID-19; (2) to explore the mediating role of homogeneous online discussion; (3) and to understand whether the extent to which one perceives themselves as media-literate could moderate the relationship.Design/methodology/approachThe authors conducted an online survey and collected data through Amazon Mechanical Turk. A total of 797 participants aged 18 and above completed the survey. The average age of the respondents is 38.40 years (SD = 12.31), and 41.2% were female. In terms of party identification, 30.8% were reported leaning toward Republicans; 53.7% leaned toward Democrats, and 15.4% were reported neutral.FindingsResults from a moderated mediation model show that social media news use is positively associated with misperceptions about the COVID-19. Moreover, homogeneous online discussion was a significant mediator of the relationship between social media news use and misperceptions about COVID-19. Further, self-perceived media literacy (SPML) significantly moderated the main and indirect effects between social media news use and COVID-19 misperceptions, such that the associations became weaker among those with higher SPML.Originality/valueFindings provide insights into the significance of online information sources, discussion network heterogeneity and media literacy education. Although there have been many studies on misinformation, prior research has not examined these relationships, which may help provide solutions to cope with misinformation.Peer reviewThe peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/10.1108/OIR-06-2021-0305
Collapse
|
2
|
Macaulay B, Reinap M, Wilson MG, Kuchenmüller T. Integrating citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in eastern Europe and central Asia: scoping study and future research priorities. Health Res Policy Syst 2022; 20:11. [PMID: 35042516 PMCID: PMC8764649 DOI: 10.1186/s12961-021-00808-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/18/2021] [Accepted: 12/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The perspectives of citizens are an important and often overlooked source of evidence for informing health policy. Despite growing encouragement for its adoption, little is known regarding how citizen engagement may be integrated into evidence-informed health policy-making in low- and middle-income counties (LMICs) and newly democratic states (NDSs). We aimed to identify the factors and variables affecting the potential integration of citizen engagement into evidence-informed health policy-making in LMICs and NDSs and understand whether its implementation may require a different approach outside of high-income western democracies. Further, we assessed the context-specific considerations for the practical implementation of citizen engagement in one focus region-eastern Europe and central Asia. METHODS First, adopting a scoping review methodology, we conducted and updated searches of six electronic databases, as well as a comprehensive grey literature search, on citizen engagement in LMICs and NDSs, published before December 2019. We extracted insights about the approaches to citizen engagement, as well as implementation considerations (facilitators and barriers) and additional political factors, in developing an analysis framework. Second, we undertook exploratory methods to identify relevant literature on the socio-political environment of the focus region, before subjecting these sources to the same analysis framework. RESULTS Our searches identified 479 unique sources, of which 28 were adjudged to be relevant. The effective integration of citizen engagement within policy-making processes in LMICs and NDSs was found to be predominantly dependent upon the willingness and capacity of citizens and policy-makers. In the focus region, the implementation of citizen engagement within evidence-informed health policy-making is constrained by a lack of mutual trust between citizens and policy-makers. This is exacerbated by inadequate incentives and capacity for either side to engage. CONCLUSIONS This research found no reason why citizen engagement could not adopt the same form in LMICs and NDSs as it does in high-income western democracies. However, it is recognized that certain political contexts may require additional support in developing and implementing citizen engagement, such as through trialling mechanisms at subnational scales. While specifically outlining the potential for citizen engagement, this study highlights the need for further research on its practical implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bobby Macaulay
- World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Marge Reinap
- World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Michael G Wilson
- McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada
| | - Tanja Kuchenmüller
- World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Lannin NA, Coulter M, Laver K, Hyett N, Ratcliffe J, Holland AE, Callaway L, English C, Bragge P, Hill S, Unsworth CA. Public perspectives on acquired brain injury rehabilitation and components of care: A Citizens' Jury. Health Expect 2020; 24:352-362. [PMID: 33264470 PMCID: PMC8077088 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13176] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/02/2020] [Revised: 10/27/2020] [Accepted: 11/15/2020] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Brain injury rehabilitation is an expensive and long-term endeavour. Very little published information or debate has underpinned policy for service delivery in Australia. Within the context of finite health budgets and the challenges associated with providing optimal care to persons with brain injuries, members of the public were asked 'What considerations are important to include in a model of care of brain injury rehabilitation?' METHODS Qualitative study using the Citizen Jury method of participatory research. Twelve adult jurors from the community and seven witnesses participated including a health services funding model expert, peak body representative with lived experience of brain injury, carer of a person with a brain injury, and brain injury rehabilitation specialists. Witnesses were cross-examined by jurors over two days. RESULTS Key themes related to the need for a model of rehabilitation to: be consumer-focused and supporting the retention of hope; be long-term; provide equitable access to services irrespective of funding source; be inclusive of family; provide advocacy; raise public awareness; and be delivered by experts in a suitable environment. A set of eight recommendations were made. CONCLUSION Instigating the recommendations made requires careful consideration of the need for new models of care with flexible services; family involvement; recruitment and retention of highly skilled staff; and providing consumer-focused services that prepare individuals and their carers for the long term. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION As jury members, the public deliberated information provided by expert witnesses (including a person with a head injury) and wrote the key recommendations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Natasha A Lannin
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.,Occupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Megan Coulter
- Occupational Therapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Kate Laver
- Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Nerida Hyett
- La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Julie Ratcliffe
- College of Nursing and Health Sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide, SA, Australia
| | - Anne E Holland
- Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.,Physiotherapy Department, Alfred Health, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | | | - Coralie English
- School of Health Sciences, Priority Research Centre for Stroke and Brain Injury, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia
| | - Peter Bragge
- BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash Sustainable Development Institute, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia
| | - Sophie Hill
- Centre for Health Communication and Participation and School of Psychology and Public Health, La Trobe University, Melbourne, Vic., Australia
| | - Carolyn A Unsworth
- Department of Neuroscience, Central Clinical School, Monash University, Clayton, Vic., Australia.,School of Health, Federation University, Churchill, Vic., Australia.,Department of Rehabilitation, Jonkoping University, Jonkoping, Sweden
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Tripp L, Abelson J. Supporting women at average risk to make informed decisions about mammography when there is no "right" answer: a qualitative citizen deliberation study. CMAJ Open 2019; 7:E730-E737. [PMID: 31836630 PMCID: PMC6910141 DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20190102] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Women are encouraged to make informed choices about mammography screening that align with their values and preferences, yet information materials developed by screening programs rarely provide complete, balanced information about screening. Through a series of deliberations with Ontario citizens, we elicited perspectives on materials developed by screening programs to support informed decision-making. METHODS We held 4 deliberative engagement events with citizens to discuss the current evidence about mammography and informed decision-making for the general population (i.e., women not at high risk) in the context of organized screening programs. Participants reviewed and provided feedback on the educational materials currently produced by screening programs in 8 provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador) and 2 territories (Yukon Territory and Northwest Territory) and identified the key features that should guide the design of these materials to optimally support informed decision-making. RESULTS In general, participants viewed the educational materials as insufficient to support informed decision-making. They identified the following key features of optimal educational materials: they should be accessible, complete and accurate, and provide information on both benefits and risks of screening in a comprehensive, easy-to-understand manner. Information materials should evoke the trust of the reader, and they should be consistent across Canada. INTERPRETATION Canadian women have insufficient access to reliable information sources and complete evidence about mammography screening, and, without this information, they are unable to make fully informed decisions. Canadian breast screening programs must take steps to improve the information shared with women to support informed decision-making that aligns with women's values and preferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura Tripp
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Tripp, Abelson) and Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (Abelson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont
| | - Julia Abelson
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact (Tripp, Abelson) and Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (Abelson), McMaster University, Hamilton, Ont.
| |
Collapse
|