Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
1.
Syst Rev ; 11(1): 107, 2022 05 30.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1951337

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends in a large part on individual and societal actions which is influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. To date, no systematic efforts have been made to evaluate interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We plan to conduct a scoping review that seeks to fill several of the gaps in the current knowledge of interventions that mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. METHODS: A scoping review focusing on interventions that mitigate COVID-19 misinformation will be conducted. We will search (from January 2020 onwards) MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science Core Collection, Africa-Wide Information, Global Health, WHO Global Literature on Coronavirus Disease Database, WHO Global Index Medicus, and Sociological Abstracts. Gray literature will be identified using Disaster Lit, Google Scholar, Open Science Framework, governmental websites, and preprint servers (e.g., EuropePMC, PsyArXiv, MedRxiv, JMIR Preprints). Study selection will conform to Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers' Manual 2020 Methodology for JBI Scoping Reviews. Only English language, original studies will be considered for inclusion. Two reviewers will independently screen all citations, full-text articles, and abstract data. A narrative summary of findings will be conducted. Data analysis will involve quantitative (e.g., frequencies) and qualitative (e.g., content and thematic analysis) methods. DISCUSSION: Original research is urgently needed to design interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation. The planned scoping review will help to address this gap. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATIONS: Systematic Review Registration: Open Science Framework (osf/io/etw9d).


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communication , Global Health , Humans , Pandemics/prevention & control , Publications , Review Literature as Topic
2.
J Health Commun ; 26(12): 846-857, 2021 12 02.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1612315

ABSTRACT

The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends largely on individual and societal actions which are influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. Despite growing attempts to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation, there is still uncertainty regarding the best way to ameliorate the impact of COVID-19 misinformation. To address this gap, the current study uses a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative impact of interventions designed to mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We searched multiple databases and gray literature from January 2020 to September 2021. The primary outcome was COVID-19 misinformation belief. We examined study quality and meta-analysis was used to pool data with similar interventions and outcomes. 16 studies were analyzed in the meta-analysis, including data from 33378 individuals. The mean effect size of interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation was positive, but not statistically significant [d = 2.018, 95% CI (-0.14, 4.18), p = .065, k = 16]. We found evidence of publication bias. Interventions were more effective in cases where participants were involved with the topic, and where text-only mitigation was used. The limited focus on non-U.S. studies and marginalized populations is concerning given the greater COVID-19 mortality burden on vulnerable communities globally. The findings of this meta-analysis describe the current state of the literature and prescribe specific recommendations to better address the proliferation of COVID-19 misinformation, providing insights helpful to mitigating pandemic outcomes.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Communication , Humans , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2
3.
JMIR Public Health Surveill ; 7(9): e29413, 2021 09 28.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1470726

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Harnessing health-related data posted on social media in real time can offer insights into how the pandemic impacts the mental health and general well-being of individuals and populations over time. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to obtain information on symptoms and medical conditions self-reported by non-Twitter social media users during the COVID-19 pandemic, to determine how discussion of these symptoms and medical conditions changed over time, and to identify correlations between frequency of the top 5 commonly mentioned symptoms post and daily COVID-19 statistics (new cases, new deaths, new active cases, and new recovered cases) in the United States. METHODS: We used natural language processing (NLP) algorithms to identify symptom- and medical condition-related topics being discussed on social media between June 14 and December 13, 2020. The sample posts were geotagged by NetBase, a third-party data provider. We calculated the positive predictive value and sensitivity to validate the classification of posts. We also assessed the frequency of health-related discussions on social media over time during the study period, and used Pearson correlation coefficients to identify statistically significant correlations between the frequency of the 5 most commonly mentioned symptoms and fluctuation of daily US COVID-19 statistics. RESULTS: Within a total of 9,807,813 posts (nearly 70% were sourced from the United States), we identified a discussion of 120 symptom-related topics and 1542 medical condition-related topics. Our classification of the health-related posts had a positive predictive value of over 80% and an average classification rate of 92% sensitivity. The 5 most commonly mentioned symptoms on social media during the study period were anxiety (in 201,303 posts or 12.2% of the total posts mentioning symptoms), generalized pain (189,673, 11.5%), weight loss (95,793, 5.8%), fatigue (91,252, 5.5%), and coughing (86,235, 5.2%). The 5 most discussed medical conditions were COVID-19 (in 5,420,276 posts or 66.4% of the total posts mentioning medical conditions), unspecified infectious disease (469,356, 5.8%), influenza (270,166, 3.3%), unspecified disorders of the central nervous system (253,407, 3.1%), and depression (151,752, 1.9%). Changes in posts in the frequency of anxiety, generalized pain, and weight loss were significant but negatively correlated with daily new COVID-19 cases in the United States (r=-0.49, r=-0.46, and r=-0.39, respectively; P<.05). Posts on the frequency of anxiety, generalized pain, weight loss, fatigue, and the changes in fatigue positively and significantly correlated with daily changes in both new deaths and new active cases in the United States (r ranged=0.39-0.48; P<.05). CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 and symptoms of anxiety were the 2 most commonly discussed health-related topics on social media from June 14 to December 13, 2020. Real-time monitoring of social media posts on symptoms and medical conditions may help assess the population's mental health status and enhance public health surveillance for infectious disease.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Pandemics , Public Health Surveillance/methods , Self Report , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Adult , Female , Humans , Male , United States/epidemiology
4.
J Med Internet Res ; 23(6): e26655, 2021 06 21.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1259299

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has continued to spread in the United States and globally. Closely monitoring public engagement and perceptions of COVID-19 and preventive measures using social media data could provide important information for understanding the progress of current interventions and planning future programs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to measure the public's behaviors and perceptions regarding COVID-19 and its effects on daily life during 5 months of the pandemic. METHODS: Natural language processing (NLP) algorithms were used to identify COVID-19-related and unrelated topics in over 300 million online data sources from June 15 to November 15, 2020. Posts in the sample were geotagged by NetBase, a third-party data provider, and sensitivity and positive predictive value were both calculated to validate the classification of posts. Each post may have included discussion of multiple topics. The prevalence of discussion regarding these topics was measured over this time period and compared to daily case rates in the United States. RESULTS: The final sample size included 9,065,733 posts, 70% of which were sourced from the United States. In October and November, discussion including mentions of COVID-19 and related health behaviors did not increase as it had from June to September, despite an increase in COVID-19 daily cases in the United States beginning in October. Additionally, discussion was more focused on daily life topics (n=6,210,255, 69%), compared with COVID-19 in general (n=3,390,139, 37%) and COVID-19 public health measures (n=1,836,200, 20%). CONCLUSIONS: There was a decline in COVID-19-related social media discussion sourced mainly from the United States, even as COVID-19 cases in the United States increased to the highest rate since the beginning of the pandemic. Targeted public health messaging may be needed to ensure engagement in public health prevention measures as global vaccination efforts continue.


Subject(s)
COVID-19/epidemiology , Public Health/statistics & numerical data , Social Media/statistics & numerical data , Cross-Sectional Studies , Humans , Natural Language Processing , Pandemics , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL