Factors Influencing Willingness to Share Health Misinformation Videos on the Internet: Web-Based Survey

Qualitative research on undergraduate nursing students' recognition and response to short videos' health disinformation

Background

With the popularity of the internet, short videos have become an indispensable tool to obtain health information. However, avoiding health disinformation owing to the openness of the Internet is difficult for users. Disinformation may endanger the health and lives of users.

Objective

With a focus on the process of identifying short videos' health disinformation and the factors affecting the accuracy of identification, this study aimed to investigate the identification methods, coping strategies, and the impact of short videos' health disinformation on undergraduate nursing students. The findings will provide guidance to users on obtaining high-quality and healthy information, in addition to reducing health risks.

Methods

Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with 22 undergraduate nursing students in October 2022, and data were collected for collation and content analyses.

Results

The techniques used to identify short videos that include health disinformation as well as how undergraduate nursing students perceived these videos' features are among the study's findings. The failure factors in identification, coping paths, and adverse impacts of short videos on health disinformation were analyzed. The platform, the material itself, and the students' individual characteristics all have an impact on their identifying behavior.

Conclusions

Medical students continue to face many obstacles in identifying and responding to health disinformation through short videos. Preventing and stopping health disinformation not only requires individual efforts to improve health literacy and maintain rational thinking, it also requires the joint efforts of short video producers, relevant departments, and platforms.

Have we found a solution for health misinformation? A ten-year systematic review of health misinformation literature 2013-2022

BACKGROUND

Health misinformation (HM) has emerged as a prominent social issue in recent years, driven by declining public trust, popularisation of digital media platforms and escalating public health crisis. Since the Covid-19 pandemic, HM has raised critical concerns due to its significant impacts on both individuals and society as a whole. A comprehensive understanding of HM and HM-related studies would be instrumental in identifying possible solutions to address HM and the associated challenges.

METHODS

Following the PRISMA procedure, 11,739 papers published from January 2013 to December 2022 were retrieved from five electronic databases, and 813 papers matching the inclusion criteria were retained for further analysis. This article critically reviewed HM-related studies, detailing the factors facilitating HM creation and dissemination, negative impacts of HM, solutions to HM, and research methods employed in those studies.

RESULTS

A growing number of studies have focused on HM since 2013. Results of this study highlight that trust plays a significant while latent role in the circuits of HM, facilitating the creation and dissemination of HM, exacerbating the negative impacts of HM and amplifying the difficulty in addressing HM.

CONCLUSION

For health authorities and governmental institutions, it is essential to systematically build public trust in order to reduce the probability of individuals acceptation of HM and to improve the effectiveness of misinformation correction. Future studies should pay more attention to the role of trust in how to address HM.

[Mis- and disinformation in social media: mitigating risks in digital health communication]

Misinformation and disinformation in social media have become a challenge for effective public health measures. Here, we examine factors that influence believing and sharing false information, both misinformation and disinformation, at individual, social, and contextual levels and discuss intervention possibilities.At the individual level, knowledge deficits, lack of skills, and emotional motivation have been associated with believing in false information. Lower health literacy, a conspiracy mindset and certain beliefs increase susceptibility to false information. At the social level, the credibility of information sources and social norms influence the sharing of false information. At the contextual level, emotions and the repetition of messages affect belief in and sharing of false information.Interventions at the individual level involve measures to improve knowledge and skills. At the social level, addressing social processes and social norms can reduce the sharing of false information. At the contextual level, regulatory approaches involving social networks is considered an important point of intervention.Social inequalities play an important role in the exposure to and processing of misinformation. It remains unclear to which degree the susceptibility to belief in and share misinformation is an individual characteristic and/or context dependent. Complex interventions are required that should take into account multiple influencing factors.

Factors associated with COVID-19 misinformation rebuttal among college students: a descriptive study

Background

The deluge of COVID-19 misinformation makes people confused, and acting on such misinformation can kill, leading to the tragic outcome of death. This makes it necessary to identify significant factors associated with college students' susceptibility.

Objective

This descriptive study sought to ascertain factors significantly associated with college students' susceptibility to online COVID-19 misinformation.

Methods

To assess college students' susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation, we first chose as independent variables some demographic information, some well-developed, validated literacy tools, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Items. Second, we selected as the dependent variable COVID-19 myths from some authoritative, official websites. Third, we integrated the independent and dependent variables into an online questionnaire. Fourth, we recruited students from Nantong University in China to participate in an online questionnaire survey. Finally, based on the data collected, we conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses to relate the independent variables to the dependent variable.

Results

Five hundred forty-six students participated in the survey voluntarily, and all questionnaires they answered were valid. The participants had an average of 2.32 (SD = 0.99) years of higher education. They have a mean age of 20.44 (SD = 1.52) years. 434 (79.5%) of the 546 participants were females. The frequency of their Internet use averaged 3.91 (SD = 0.41), indicating that they logged onto the Internet almost every day. Their self-reported Internet skill was rated 3.79 (SD = 1.07), indicating that the participants rated their Internet skills as basically "good." The mean scores of the sub-constructs in the AAHLS were 6.14 (SD = 1.37) for functional health literacy, 5.10 (SD = 1.65) for communicative health literacy, and 11.13 (SD = 2.65) for critical health literacy. These mean scores indicated that the participants needed help to read health-related materials "sometimes," the frequency that they knew how to communicate effectively with professional health providers was between "often" and "sometimes," and the frequency that they were critical about health information was between "often" and "sometimes," respectively. The sum of their scores for eHealth literacy averaged 28.29 (SD = 5.31), showing that they had a relatively high eHealth literacy level. The mean score for each question in the GHNT was determined at 1.31 (SD = 0.46), 1.36 (SD = 0.48), 1.41 (SD = 0.49), 1.77 (SD = 0.42), 1.51 (SD = 0.50), and 1.54 (SD = 0.50), respectively. These mean scores showed that a high percentage of the participants answered the 6 questions wrongly, especially Questions 4-6. Similarly, participants performed unsatisfactorily in answering the 3 questions in the CRT, with a mean score of 1.75 (SD = 0.43), 1.55 (SD = 0.50), and 1.59 (SD = 0.49) for each question, respectively. In the PHQ-9, the participants reported that they never felt depressed or felt depressed only for 1-3 days in the past week. The mean score for myths 1-6 and 9-10 ranged from 1.15 (SD = 0.36) to 1.29 (SD = 0.46). This meant that the participants rated these myths false. However, most of the participants rated myths 7-8 true (1.54, SD = 0.50; 1.49, SD = 0.50), showing that they were highly susceptible to these 2 pieces of misinformation. Through data analysis via Logistic Regression (forward stepwise), we found that (1) at an average threshold of 0.5, Internet use frequency, functional health literacy, general health numeracy, reflective thinking tendency, and depression severity were significant predictors of susceptibility to misinformation for both male and female students, (2) at a higher threshold of 0.8, aggregated general health numeracy scores and functional health literacy scores, as well as depression severity were predictors of susceptibility to misinformation for both male and female students, (3) functional health literacy, general health literacy, and depression predicted resistance to misinformation for female students, and (4) internet use frequency and self-reported digital health literacy predicted resistance to misinformation for male students.

Conclusion

We revealed the complexity, dynamics, and differences in age, gender, education, Internet exposure, communicative health literacy, and cognitive skills concerning college students' susceptibility to online COVID-19 misinformation. Hopefully, this study can provide valuable implications for counteracting COVID-19 misinformation among Chinese college students.

Distractions, analytical thinking and falling for fake news: A survey of psychological factors

Analytical thinking safeguards us against believing or spreading fake news. In various forms, this common assumption has been reported, investigated, or implemented in fake news education programs. Some have associated this assumption with the inverse claim, that distractions from analytical thinking may render us vulnerable to believing or spreading fake news. This paper surveys the research done between 2016 and 2022 on psychological factors influencing one's susceptibility to believing or spreading fake news, considers which of the psychological factors are plausible distractors to one's exercise of analytical thinking, and discusses some implications of considering them as distractors to analytical thinking. From these, the paper draws five conclusions: (1) It is not analytical thinking per se, but analytical thinking directed to evaluating the truth that safeguards us from believing or spreading fake news. (2) While psychological factors can distract us from exercising analytical thinking and they can also distract us in exercising analytical thinking. (3) Whether a psychological factor functions as a distractor from analytical thinking or in analytical thinking may depend on contextual factors. (4) Measurements of analytical thinking may not indicate vulnerability to believing or spreading fake news. (5) The relevance of motivated reasoning to our tendency to believe fake news should not yet be dismissed. These findings may be useful to guide future research in the intersection of analytical thinking and susceptibility to believing or spreading fake news.

Cognitive and Cultural Factors That Affect General Vaccination and COVID-19 Vaccination Attitudes

The development of COVID-19 vaccines is a major scientific accomplishment that has armed communities worldwide with powerful epidemic control tools. Yet, COVID-19 vaccination efforts in the US have been marred by persistent vaccine hesitancy. We used survey methodology to explore the impact of different cognitive and cultural factors on the public's general vaccination attitudes, attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines, and COVID-19 vaccination status. The factors include information literacy, science literacy, attitudes towards science, interpersonal trust, public health trust, political ideology, and religiosity. The analysis suggests that attitudes towards vaccination are influenced by a multitude of factors that operate in a complex manner. General vaccination attitude was most affected by attitudes towards science and public health trust and to a lesser degree by information literacy, science literacy, and religiosity. Attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccines were most affected by public health trust and to a lesser extent by general trust, ideology and attitudes towards science. Vaccination status was most influenced by public health trust. Possible mediating effects of correlated variables in the model need to be further explored. The study underscores the importance of understanding the relationship between public health trust, literacies, and sociocultural factors.