Use of Twitter Amplifiers by Medical Professionals to Combat Misinformation During the COVID-19 Pandemic

COVID-19 Vaccine Information and Infertility Posts on X: Insights on a Misinformation Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to evaluate misinformation surrounding infertility and the COVID-19 vaccine on X (formerly known as Twitter) by analyzing the prevalence and content of this misinformation across a sample of posts on X.

METHODS

This study is a retrospective review of posts on X (formerly known as tweets) from the COVID-19-TweetIDs dataset from July 2021 and November 2021. Included posts were from crucial time points in the COVID-19 vaccine discourse and contained at least one word related to COVID-19 vaccination and fertility. Posts were analyzed and categorized based on factuality, common words, and hashtags. Descriptive statistics on total followers, account verification status, and engagement were obtained. Differences between posts on X classified as factual and misinformation were examined using analysis of variance or χ2 tests. Sentiment analysis determined if post content was generally positive, neutral, or negative.

RESULTS

A total of 17,418 relevant posts on X were reviewed: 11,436 from timeframe 1 (July 2021) and 5982 from timeframe 2 (December 2021). Misinformation posts rose from 29.9% in July 2021 to 45.1% in November 2021. In both timeframes, accounts sharing factual information had more followers (p < 0.001), and verified users were more likely to share accurate posts (p ≤ 0.001). Factual and misinformation posts had similar engagement. Sentiment analysis identified that real posts were more positive and misinformation posts were more negative (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Misinformation about the COVID-19 vaccine and fertility is highly prevalent on X and threatens vaccine uptake in patients desiring future fertility. Accounts sharing factual information were likely to have more followers and be verified; therefore, verifying more physicians sharing accurate information is critical.

A Reassessment of the Impact and Significance of Social Media to Pathology

CONTEXT

Social media (SM) use in pathology and medicine today is widespread, receives active advocacy, and is said to bring a host of benefits. In latter days, the harmful effects of SM have received attention, but they have yet been followed by greater encouragement of professionalized SM usage. SM use in medicine has seen adoption in parallel to its general ascendancy, even though the platforms are products with purposes misaligned with the practice of medicine.

OBJECTIVE

To (1) characterize premises and forces that propel professional SM platform adoption and use, and (2) examine wide-ranging literature, both medical and nonmedical, that substantiates the premises and to find counteracting perspectives and evidence.

DATA SOURCES

Review of the literature using relevant keyword searches in PubMed, Google Scholar, Dimensions, and Web of Science for articles that study/describe professional SM use in pathology and medicine. Additionally, we examined business, technology, and social sciences literature and high-quality gray literature (newspapers, books, blogs) that addressed questions in relation to the topic of professional SM adoption.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified 6 major premises as motivators of professional SM use and highlight significant counteracting factors. We conclude that the harms of professionalized SM use have not been fully considered in the medical literature and that a change in direction and the creation of new communication platforms would be beneficial.

'My doctor self and my human self': A qualitative study of physicians' presentation of self on social media

INTRODUCTION

When using social media, physicians are encouraged and trained to maintain separate professional and personal identities. However, this separation is difficult and even undesirable, as the blurring of personal and professional online presence can influence patient trust. Thus, it is necessary to develop policies and educational resources that are more responsive to the blurring of personal and professional boundaries on social media. This study aims to provide an understanding of how physicians present themselves holistically online to inform such policies and resources.

METHODS

Twenty-eight US-based physicians who use social media were interviewed. Participants were asked to describe how and why they use social media, specifically Twitter (rebranded as 'X' in 2023). Interviews were complemented by data from the participants' Twitter profiles. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis guided by Goffman's dramaturgical model. This model uses the metaphor of a stage to characterise how individuals attempt to control the aspects of the identities-or faces-they display during social interactions.

RESULTS

The participants presented seven faces, which included professionally focused faces (e.g. networker) and those more personal in nature (e.g. human). The participants crafted and maintained these faces through discursive choices in their tweets and profiles, which were motivated by their audience's perceptions. We identified overlaps and tensions at the intersections of these faces, which posed professional and personal challenges for participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians strategically emphasise their more professional or personal faces according to their objectives and motivations in different communicative situations, and tailor their language and content to better reach their target audiences. While tensions arise between these faces, physicians still prefer to project a rounded, integral image of themselves on social media. This suggests a need to reconsider social media policies and related educational initiatives to better align with the realities of these digital environments.

Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) defined an infodemic as an overabundance of information, accurate or not, in the digital and physical space, accompanying an acute health event such as an outbreak or epidemic. It can impact people's risk perceptions, trust, and confidence in the health system, and health workers. As an immediate response, the WHO developed the infodemic management (IM) frameworks, research agenda, intervention frameworks, competencies, and processes for reference by health authorities.

Objective

This systematic review explored the response to and during acute health events by health authorities and other organizations operating in health. It also assessed the effectiveness of the current interventions.

Methods

On 26 June 2023, an online database search included Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Epistemonikos, and the WHO website. It included English-only, peer-reviewed studies or reports covering IM processes applied by health organizations that reported their effectiveness. There was no restriction on publication dates. Two independent reviewers conducted all screening, inclusion, and quality assessments, and a third reviewer arbitrated any disagreement between the two reviewers.

Results

Reviewers identified 945 records. After a final assessment, 29 studies were included in the review and were published between 2021 and 2023. Some countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Spain, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Finland, South Korea, and Russia) applied different methods of IM to people's behaviors. These included but were not limited to launching media and TV conservations, using web and scientific database searches, posting science-based COVID-19 information, implementing online surveys, and creating an innovative ecosystem of digital tools, and an Early AI-supported response with Social Listening (EARS) platform. Most of the interventions were effective in containing the harmful effects of COVID-19 infodemic. However, the quality of the evidence was not robust.

Discussion

Most of the infodemic interventions applied during COVID-19 fall within the recommended actions of the WHO IM ecosystem. As a result, the study suggests that more research is needed into the challenges facing health systems in different operational environments and country contexts in relation to designing, implementing, and evaluating IM interventions, strategies, policies, and systems.

Using social media for patient care, research, and professional development: A North American Society of Pediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology, and Nutrition position paper

The advent of social media has changed numerous aspects of modern life, with users developing and maintaining personal and professional relationships, following and sharing breaking news and importantly, searching for and disseminating health information and medical research. In the present paper, we reviewed available literature to outline the potential uses, pitfalls and impacts of social media for providers, scientists and institutions involved in digestive health in the domains of patient care, research and professional development. We recommend that these groups become more active participants on social media platforms to combat misinformation, advocate for patients, and curate and disseminate valuable research and educational materials. We also recommend that societies such as NASPGHAN assist its members in accessing training on effective social media use and the creation and maintenance of public-facing profiles and that academic institutions incorporate substantive social media contributions into academic promotion processes.

The role of emergency physicians in the fight against health misinformation: Implications for resident training

Emergency physicians on the frontlines of the COVID-19 pandemic are first-hand witnesses to the direct impact of health misinformation and disinformation on individual patients, communities, and public health at large. Therefore, emergency physicians naturally have a crucial role to play to steward factual information and combat health misinformation. Unfortunately, most physicians lack the communications and social media training needed to address health misinformation with patients and online, highlighting an obvious gap in emergency medicine training. We convened an expert panel of academic emergency physicians who have taught and conducted research about health misinformation at the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) Annual Meeting in New Orleans, LA, on May 13, 2022. The panelists represented geographically diverse institutions including Baystate Medical Center/Tufts University, Boston Medical Center, Northwestern University, Rush Medical College, and Stanford University. In this article, we describe the scope and impact of health misinformation, introduce methods for addressing misinformation in the clinical environment and online, acknowledge the challenges of tackling misinformation from our physician colleagues, demonstrate strategies for debunking and prebunking, and highlight implications for education and training in emergency medicine. Finally, we discuss several actionable interventions that define the role of the emergency physician in the management of health misinformation.

Addressing the spread of health-related misinformation on social networks: an opinion article

This article deals with the spread of misinformation in a general context and specifically in the health sector. It presents a theoretical view of the problem and analyzes its characteristics with a focus on medicine and mainly rheumatology. Finally, conclusions from the previous analysis are formulated as well as suggestions for reducing the dimensions of the problem in the health sector.

Promoting COVID-19 vaccine confidence through public responses to misinformation: The joint influence of message source and message content

OBJECTIVE

During the pandemic healthcare professionals and political leaders routinely used traditional and new media outlets to publicly respond to COVID-19 myths and inaccuracies. We examine how variations in the sources and messaging strategies of these public statements affect respondents' beliefs about the safety of COVID-19 vaccines.

METHODS

We analyzed the results of an experiment embedded within a multi-wave survey deployed to US and UK respondents in January-February 2022 to examine these effects. We employ a test-retest between-subjects experimental protocol with a control group. Respondents were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions reflecting discrete pairings of message source (political authorities vs. healthcare professionals) and messaging strategy (debunking misinformation vs. discrediting mis-informants) or a control condition. We use linear regression to compare the effects of exposure to treatment conditions on changes in respondent beliefs about the potential risks associated with COVID-19 vaccination.

RESULTS

In the UK sample, we observe a statistically significant decrease in beliefs about the risks of COVID-19 vaccines among respondents exposed to debunking messages by healthcare professionals. We observe a similar relationship in the US sample, but the effect was weaker and not significant. Identical messages from political authorities had no effect on respondents' beliefs about vaccine risks in either sample. Discrediting messages critical of mis-informants likewise had no influence on respondent beliefs, regardless of the actor to which they were attributed. Political ideology moderated the influence of debunking statements by healthcare professionals on respondent vaccine attitudes in the US sample, such that the treatment was more effective among liberals and moderates than among conservatives.

CONCLUSIONS

Brief exposure to public statements refuting anti-vaccine misinformation can help promote vaccine confidence among some populations. The results underscore the joint importance of message source and messaging strategy in determining the effectiveness of responses to misinformation.