ABSTRACT
Disinformation has become one of the main problems for society and democracy. Despite the increase in research on this topic, citizen perception of the effects caused by fake news and how to combat it is yet an ongoing issue. Our objective is to analyze these two aspects in the context of COVID-19 in Spain. Also, we seek to identify the sociodemographic and political factors that determine them. We employed a quantitative survey run through an online panel (n=682). The results indicate that disinformation generates, as the primary effect, an increase in mistrust towards the media and politicians among Spanish citizens. Likewise, the incidence of disinformation in the change of opinion and the decision to vote has dropped. Concerning Coronavirus, falsehoods had a low impact on vaccination, although they promoted conspiracy theories among citizens. Men, young people and far-right sympathizers perceive the consequences of deception more intensely. Finally, the work of fact-checking agencies and legislation are the mechanisms to combat disinformation that citizens consider most reliable. These results have important implications for public institutions and journalism. © 2023 Scientific Association Icono14. All rights reserved.
ABSTRACT
Disinformation has become one of the main problems for society and democracy. Despite the increase in research on this topic, citizen perception of the effects caused by fake news and how to combat it is yet an ongoing issue. Our objective is to analyze these two aspects in the context of COVID-19 in Spain. Also, we seek to identify the sociodemographic and political factors that determine them. We employed a quantitative survey run through an online panel (n= 682). The results indicate that disinformation generates, as the primary effect, an increase in mistrust towards the media and politicians among Spanish citizens. Likewise, the incidence of disinformation in the change of opinion and the decision to vote has dropped. Concerning Coronavirus, falsehoods had a low impact on vaccination, although they promoted conspiracy theories among citizens. Men, young people and far -right sympathizers perceive the consequences of hoaxes more intensely. Finally, fact -checking and legislation are the mechanisms to combat disinformation that citizens consider most reliable. These results have important implications for public institutions and journalism.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Large scale physical distancing measures and movement restrictions imposed to contain COVID-19, often referred to as 'lockdowns', abruptly and ubiquitously restricted access to routine healthcare services. This study describes reported barriers and coping mechanisms to accessing healthcare among chronic care patients during the nationwide COVID-19 lockdown in Rwanda. METHODS: This cross-sectional study was conducted among chronic care patients enrolled in pediatric development, HIV/AIDS, non-communicable diseases, mental health, and oncology programs at 3 rural Rwandan districts. Active patients with an appointment scheduled between March-June 2020 and a phone number recorded in the electronic medical record system were eligible. Data were collected by telephone interviews between 23rd April and 11th May 2020, with proxy reporting by caregivers for children and critically ill-patients. Fisher's exact tests were used to measure associations. Logistic regression analysis was also used to assess factors associated with reporting at least one barrier to accessing healthcare during the lockdown. RESULTS: Of 220 patient respondents, 44% reported at least one barrier to accessing healthcare. Barriers included lack of access to emergency care (n = 50; 22.7%), lack of access to medication (n = 44; 20.0%) and skipping clinical appointments (n = 37; 16.8%). Experiencing barriers was associated with the clinical program (p < 0.001), with oncology patients being highly affected (64.5%), and with increasing distance from home to the health facility (p = 0.031). In the adjusted logistic regression model, reporting at least one barrier to accessing healthcare was associated with the patient's clinical program and district of residence. Forty (18.2%) patients identified positive coping mechanisms to ensure continuation of care, such as walking long distances during suspension of public transport (n = 21; 9.6%), contacting clinicians via telephone for guidance or rescheduling appointments (n = 15; 6.8%), and delegating someone else for medication pick-up (n = 6; 2.7%). Of 124 patients who reported no barriers to accessing healthcare, 9% used positive coping mechanisms. CONCLUSION: A large proportion of chronic care patients experienced barriers to accessing healthcare during the COVID-19 lockdown. However, many patients also independently identified positive coping mechanisms to ensure continuation of care - strategies that could be formally adopted by healthcare systems in Rwanda and similar settings to mitigate effects of future lockdowns on patients.