Combating misinformation: The effects of infographics in verifying false vaccine news

Objective: False news about vaccination shared in digital spaces is a major problem that harms informed health choices. Drawing from processing fluency theory, we propose that an infographic – a visual representation of information – reduces cognitive load, thereby helping people retain and process the necessary information to discern truth from falsehood in health news. Design: Web-administered experiment. Setting: US web-based experiment on Qualtrics. Method: A national sample of participants was randomly assigned to one of the three conditions: a news literacy infographic, the same information but text-only, or a control group (a blank page). After the short intervention, study participants were shown false news about vaccinations and asked to make judgements about this news. Results: Our study found that people in the infographic condition were better able to verify false news than others. They also showed lower trust in false news articles and higher confidence in their judgement than those in the control condition. Conclusion: Findings further our understanding of how visuals accompanied by text, such as an infographic, can improve the quality of health education. During the current problem of digital spaces filled with misinformation, using a short intervention with visuals can help audiences determine the credibility of information they encounter about vaccines.

Vaccine Videos and Information Sharing: The Effects of Framing, Evidence Type, and Speaker Expertise.

YouTube videos have been used to inform and misinform the public about the safety of vaccines related to health threats such as measles and COVID-19. Understanding how such videos can promote the sharing of accurate vaccine safety information is of the utmost importance if health researchers are to combat the spread of misinformation and encourage widespread uptake of vaccines. Through the lens of prospect theory, this study conducted a 2 (framing: loss v. gain) x 2 (evidence type: episodic v. thematic) x 2 (speaker expertise: expert v. non-expert) between-subject factorial experiment in which a sample of N = 400 US adults over the age of 18 recruited through MTurk were asked their intention to share vaccine safety information with others after watching a manipulated YouTube video. The results showed that loss framing was associated with perceived MMR severity which was, in turn, associated with the likelihood that participants would share MMR vaccine information with others, via any means. However, this process varied depending on the type of evidence delivered, and the expertise of the speaker. Results and limitations are discussed in the context of vaccine communication and social media.

Determining the communicable period of SARS-CoV-2: A rapid review of the literature, March to September 2020.

IntroductionStandard testing for infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is based on RT-PCR tests, but detection of viral genetic material alone does not indicate ongoing infectious potential. The ability to isolate whole virus represents a better proxy for infectivity.AimThe objective of this study was to gain an understanding of the current literature and compare the reported periods of positive SARS-CoV-2 detection from studies that conducted RT-PCR testing in addition to experiments isolating whole virus.MethodsUsing a rapid review approach, studies reporting empirical data on the duration of positive RT-PCR results and/or successful viral isolation following SARS-CoV-2 infection in humans were identified through searches of peer-reviewed and pre-print health sciences literature. Articles were screened for relevance, then data were extracted, analysed, and synthesised.ResultsOf the 160 studies included for qualitative analysis, 84% (n = 135) investigated duration of positive RT-PCR tests only, 5% (n = 8) investigated duration of successful viral isolations, while 11% (n = 17) included measurements on both. There was significant heterogeneity in reported data. There was a prolonged time to viral clearance when deduced from RT-PCR tests compared with viral isolations (median: 26 vs 9 days).DiscussionFindings from this review support a minimum 10-day period of isolation but certain cases where virus was isolated after 10 days were identified. Given the extended time to viral clearance from RT-PCR tests, future research should ensure standard reporting of RT-PCR protocols and results to help inform testing policies aimed at clearance from isolation.