A Systematic Review Of COVID-19 Misinformation Interventions: Lessons Learned

The search for the missing link between health misinformation & health disparities

Relative to the rapid increase in available health information, little has been published on the differential impact misinformation has on the health of communities. Observations during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic indicated there were communities that made decisions that negatively impacted health outcomes beyond expectations; we propose that health misinformation was a contributor to poor health outcomes. Health misinformation exposure varies across communities and preliminary research suggests that some communities are more vulnerable to the impact of health misinformation than others. However, few studies have evaluated the connection between health misinformation and healthcare disparities. In this paper, we (a) review the current literature on misinformation and its impact on health disparities, (b) expand on prior epidemiological models to explain the communal spread of misinformation and the link to disparate health outcomes, (c) identify gaps in knowledge about communal misinformation spread (d) review promising interventions to halt the adverse impact of misinformation.

Understanding the features and effectiveness of randomized controlled trials in reducing COVID-19 misinformation: a systematic review

This systematic review aimed to assess the features and effectiveness of individual-level randomized controlled trials targeting COVID-19 misinformation. The selection process included rigorous criteria, resulting in the inclusion of 24 individual studies from 21 papers. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries, with the accuracy/credibility of information as the primary outcome. Debunking and boosting interventions were the most common interventions while nudging and content labeling interventions were examined in a few studies. This study highlights that further research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of boosting strategies and to explore the impact of combined interventions. Addressing bias concerns and standardizing intervention assessment measures will contribute to the development of evidence-based approaches in this critical area.

SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among healthcare professionals in a rural state

Objectives

We evaluated SARS-CoV-2 anti-nucleocapsid (anti-N) seroconversion and seroreversion rates, risk factors associated with SARS-CoV-2 seroconversion, and COVID-19 risk perceptions among academic healthcare center employees in a rural state.

Methods

Among employees aged ≥18 years who completed a screening survey (n = 1,377), we invited all respondents reporting previous COVID-19 (n = 85; 82 accepted) and a random selection of respondents not reporting previous COVID-19 (n = 370; 220 accepted) to participate. Participants completed surveys and provided blood samples at 3-month intervals (T0, T3, T6, T9). We used logistic regression to identify risk factors for seropositivity at T0.

Results

The cohort was primarily direct patient caregivers (205/302; 67.9%), white (278/302; 92.1%), and female (212/302; 70.2%). At T0, 86/302 (28.4%) participants were seropositive. Of the seronegative participants, 6/198 (3.0%), 6/183 (3.3%), and 14/180 (7.8%) had seroconverted at T3, T6, and T9, respectively. The overall seroreversion rate was 6.98% at T9. At T0, nursing staff (odds ratio [OR], 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.08, 5.19) and being within six feet of a non-household member outside of work (OR, 2.91; 95% CI, 1.02, 8.33) had significantly higher odds of seropositivity. Vaccination (OR, 0.05; 95% CI, 0.02, 0.12) and face mask use (OR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17, 0.78) were protective.

Conclusions

The seroconversion and seroreversion rates were low among participants. Public health and infection prevention measures implemented early in the COVID-19 pandemic - vaccination, face mask use, and social distancing - were associated with significantly lower odds of SARS-CoV-2 seropositivity among participants.

Repeated Exposure to COVID-19 Misinformation: A Longitudinal Analysis of Prevalence and Predictors in a Community Sample

Belief in health misinformation can affect individual health decisions and actions. Repeated exposure to the same misinformation strengthens its impact, yet little is known about how commonly repeated exposure occurs. To estimate the prevalence, we tracked exposure to 5 inaccurate COVID-19 claims every week for up to 23 consecutive weeks in a racially diverse panel of adults (n = 213). Repeated exposure was common: across the 5 claims, 10%-43% of respondents reported hearing the misinformation in ≥ 3 different weeks. Frontline workers were more likely than other community members to experience repeated exposure, with adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) ranging from 1.8 to 4.9 across the 4 items. Repeated exposure was most common among older adults. Adjusted IRR for those ages ≥ 50 versus 18-29 years ranged from 1.8 to 2.5 per misinformation claim. Public health planning efforts to counter health misinformation should anticipate multiple exposures to the same false claim, especially in certain subgroups.

Who's in control? Situating expertise, (mis)trust, and power among the Latine/Hispanic community in COVID-19's liminal moments

BACKGROUND

Research has established the disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on Black, Indigenous, and People of color (BIPOC) communities, and the barriers to vaccine trust and access among these populations. Focusing on perceptions of safety, access, and trustworthiness, studies often attach barriers to community-members, and discuss vaccines as if developed from an objective perspective, or "view from nowhere" (Haraway).

OBJECTIVE

We sought to follow Haraway's concept of "situated knowledges," whereby no one truth exists, and information is understood within its context, to understand the exertions of expertise surrounding vaccines. We focused on perceptions of power among a BIPOC community during a relatively unexamined moment, wherein the status of the pandemic and steps to prevent it were particularly uncertain.

METHODS

We report the findings of ten focus groups conducted among members of Rhode Island's Latine/Hispanic communities between December 2021 and May 2022. We called this time COVID-19's liminal moment because vaccines were distributed, mandates were lifted, vaccine efficacy was doubted, and new strains spread. We translated, transcribed, and analyzed focus groups using thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Community-member (n = 65) perceptions of control aligned with three key themes: (1) no power is capable of controlling COVID-19, (2) we are the objects of scientific and political powers, and (3) we, as individuals and communities, can control COVID-19 through our decisions and actions.

CONCLUSIONS

By centering the perspectives of a minoritized community, we situated the scientific knowledge produced about COVID-19 within the realities of imperfect interventions, uncontrollable situations, and medical power-exertions. We argue that medical knowledge should not be assumed implicitly trustworthy, or even capable, but instead seen as one of many products of human labor within human systems. Trust and trustworthiness must be mutually negotiated between experts, contexts, and communities through communication, empowerment, and justice.

"Inoculation" to Resist Misinformation

This JAMA Insights in the Communicating Medicine series explores the concept of “prebunking,” a psychological inoculation technique that could help prevent the spread of misinformation.

Online rumors during the COVID-19 pandemic: co-evolution of themes and emotions

Introduction

During public health emergencies, online rumors spread widely on social media, causing public information anxiety and emotional fluctuations. Analyzing the co-evolution patterns of online rumor themes and emotions is essential for implementing proactive and precise governance of online rumors during such events.

Methods

Rumor texts from mainstream fact-checking platforms during the COVID-19 pandemic were collected and analyzed in phases based on the crisis lifecycle theory. The LDA topic model was applied to analyze the distribution of rumor themes at different stages. The Baidu AI Sentiment Analysis API was used to study the emotional tendencies of rumors at different stages. Line graphs were utilized to analyze the co-evolution characteristics of rumor themes and emotions.

Results

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the themes of online rumors can be categorized into five types: epidemic prevention and control, panic-inducing, production and livelihood, virus dissemination, and social figures. These themes exhibited repetition and fluctuation at different stages of the pandemic. The emotions embedded in pandemic-related online rumors evolved with the progression of the pandemic. Panic-inducing rumors co-evolved with negative emotions, while epidemic prevention and control rumors co-evolved with positive emotions.

Conclusion

The study results help to understand the public's focus and emotional tendencies at different stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, thereby enabling targeted public opinion guidance and crisis management.

The importance of epistemology for the study of misinformation

Scholars have rapidly produced a robust body of literature addressing the public's beliefs in, and interactions with "misinformation." Despite the literature's stated concerns about the underlying truth value of the information and beliefs in question, the field has thus far operated without a reliable epistemology for determining the truth of the information and beliefs in question, often leaving researchers (or third parties) to make such determinations based on loose definitions and a naïve epistemology. We argue that, while this area of research has made great strides in recent years, more attention to definitions, epistemology, and terminology would both improve the validity of the literature and prevent the field of misinformation studies from becoming political conflict by another name.

The role of the (in)accessibility of social media data for infodemic management: a public health perspective on the situation in the European Union in March 2024

Public health institutions rely on the access to social media data to better understand the dynamics and impact of infodemics - an overabundance of information during a disease outbreak, potentially including mis-and disinformation. The scope of the COVID-19 infodemic has led to growing concern in the public health community. The spread of harmful information or information voids may negatively impact public health. In this context, social media are of particular relevance as an integral part of our society, where much information is consumed. In this perspective paper, we discuss the current state of (in)accessibility of social media data of the main platforms in the European Union. The European Union's relatively new Digital Services Act introduces the obligation for platforms to provide data access to a wide range of researchers, likely including researchers at public health institutions without formal academic affiliation. We examined eight platforms (Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Snapchat, TikTok, X, YouTube) affected by the new legislation in regard to data accessibility. We found that all platforms apart from TikTok offer data access through the Digital Services Act. Potentially, this presents a fundamentally new situation for research, as before the Digital Services Act, few platforms granted data access or only to very selective groups of researchers. The access regime under the Digital Services Act is, however, still evolving. Specifics such as the application procedure for researcher access are still being worked out and results can be expected in spring 2024. The impact of the Digital Services Act on research will therefore only become fully apparent in the future.

Ivermectin prescription fill rates among U.S. Military members during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic

This report describes ivermectin prescription fill rates among U.S. active component service members (ACSM) over time during the early phases of the COVID-19 pandemic. Information about the unsubstantiated benefits of ivermectin for coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) prevention and treatment was widely available online early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Ivermectin prescription fill rates increased among ACSM during periods of Alpha and Delta coronavirus variant predominance, but not during the predominance of the Omicron variant. At the peak of the fill rate curve, in August 2021, rates were higher among men compared to women, older compared to younger age groups, senior officers compared to junior officers, senior enlisted compared to junior enlisted service members, and those with a bachelor's or advanced degree compared to those without a bachelor's degree. Ivermectin prescriptions were more likely to have been filled at a retail pharmacy than at a military hospital or clinic. During the COVID-19 pandemic fill rates for ivermectin prescriptions among ACSM increased, including those without a qualifying diagnosis. Rates peaked in August 2021 but subsequently declined. The decrease in ivermectin fill rates was coincident with vigorous efforts to correct previous misinformation and implement pre-authorization requirements for prescriptions. Research on the impact of unproven online claims about clinical and public health interventions has potential to curtail future unnecessary and potentially harmful treatments.