Beyond misinformation: developing a public health prevention framework for managing information ecosystems.

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted how infodemics (defined as an overabundance of information, including misinformation and disinformation) pose a threat to public health and could hinder individuals from making informed health decisions. Although public health authorities and other stakeholders have implemented measures for managing infodemics, existing frameworks for infodemic management have been primarily focused on responding to acute health emergencies rather than integrated in routine service delivery. We review the evidence and propose a framework for infodemic management that encompasses upstream strategies and provides guidance on identifying different interventions, informed by the four levels of prevention in public health: primary, secondary, tertiary, and primordial prevention. On the basis of a narrative review of 54 documents (peer-reviewed and grey literature published from 1961 to 2023), we present examples of interventions that belong to each level of prevention. Adopting this framework requires proactive prevention and response through managing information ecosystems, beyond reacting to misinformation or disinformation.

Social histories of public health misinformation and infodemics: case studies of four pandemics.

Recognition of misinformation as a public health threat and interest in infodemics, defined as an inundation of information accompanying an epidemic or acute health event, have increased worldwide. However, scientists have no consensus on how to best define and identify misinformation and other essential characteristics of infodemics. We conducted a narrative review of secondary historical sources to examine previous infodemics in relation to four infectious diseases associated with pandemics (ie, smallpox, cholera, 1918 influenza, and HIV) and challenge the assumption that misinformation is a new phenomenon associated with increased use of social media or with the COVID-19 pandemic. On the contrary, we found that the spread of health misinformation has always been a public health challenge that has necessitated innovative solutions from medical and public health communities. We suggest expanding beyond the narrow scope of addressing misinformation to manage information ecosystems, defined as how people consume, produce, interact with, and behave around information, which include factors such as trust, stigma, and scientific literacy. Although misinformation can spread on a global scale, this holistic approach advocates for community-level interventions that improve relationships and trust between medical or public health entities and local populations.

Establishing Infodemic Management in Germany: A Framework for Social Listening and Integrated Analysis to Report Infodemic Insights at the National Public Health Institute.

BACKGROUND: To respond to the need to establish infodemic management functions at the national public health institute in Germany (Robert Koch Institute, RKI), we explored and assessed available data sources, developed a social listening and integrated analysis framework, and defined when infodemic management functions should be activated during emergencies. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to establish a framework for social listening and integrated analysis for public health in the German context using international examples and technical guidance documents for infodemic management. METHODS: This study completed the following objectives: identified (potentially) available data sources for social listening and integrated analysis; assessed these data sources for their suitability and usefulness for integrated analysis in addition to an assessment of their risk using the RKI's standardized data protection requirements; developed a framework and workflow to combine social listening and integrated analysis to report back actionable infodemic insights for public health communications by the RKI and stakeholders; and defined criteria for activating integrated analysis structures in the context of a specific health event or health emergency. RESULTS: We included and classified 38% (16/42) of the identified and assessed data sources for social listening and integrated analysis at the RKI into 3 categories: social media and web-based listening data, RKI-specific data, and infodemic insights. Most data sources can be analyzed weekly to detect current trends and narratives and to inform a timely response by reporting insights that include a risk assessment and scalar judgments of different narratives and themes. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified, assessed, and prioritized a wide range of data sources for social listening and integrated analysis to report actionable infodemic insights, ensuring a valuable first step in establishing and operationalizing infodemic management at the RKI. This case study also serves as a roadmap for others. Ultimately, once operational, these activities will inform better and targeted public health communication at the RKI and beyond.

The Future of Infodemic Surveillance as Public Health Surveillance.

Public health systems need to be able to detect and respond to infodemics (outbreaks of misinformation, disinformation, information overload, or information voids). Drawing from our experience at the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the COVID-19 State of Vaccine Confidence Insight Reporting System has been created as one of the first public health infodemic surveillance systems. Key functions of infodemic surveillance systems include monitoring the information environment by person, place, and time; identifying infodemic events with digital analytics; conducting offline community-based assessments; and generating timely routine reports. Although specific considerations of several system attributes of infodemic surveillance system must be considered, infodemic surveillance systems share several similarities with traditional public health surveillance systems. Because both information and pathogens are spread more readily in an increasingly hyperconnected world, sustainable and routine systems must be created to ensure that timely interventions can be deployed for both epidemic and infodemic response.

Predicting Clinical Practice Change: An Evaluation of Trainings on Sexually Transmitted Disease Knowledge, Diagnosis, and Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted disease clinical training for working professionals requires substantial time and resources. Understanding the predictors of change in worksite practices and barriers to change will allow educators, learners, and clinical leadership to aid in ensuring learned practices are implemented and barriers are addressed. METHODS: Data for this analysis come from the first standardized national evaluation of a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-funded clinical prevention training network, including precourse registration and responses to immediate postcourse (1-3 days) and 90-day postcourse evaluations from 187 courses. Univariate statistics describe the trainees and their workplace. Bivariate statistics describe their intention to change and actual change stratified by functional role and employment setting. Logistic regression identified predictors of self-reported changes in practice. RESULTS: The strongest predictors for practice change included an intention to change and attendance at a training lasting 4 hours or more. Functional role was a weaker predictor of change in practice; employment setting did not predict change. More than half of the trainees (65.9%; n = 912) stated their intention to make a change in their practice immediately after training. At 90 days after a course, 62.4% (n = 863) reported making a practice change. Trainees that took courses lasting 4 hours or more reported making a change more often (70%) compared with trainees from shorter courses (53%). We also report on trainees' barriers to practice change. CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest that longer trainings may result in more practice change than shorter trainings, recruitment of trainees should focus on those more likely to make a change in their practice, and future trainings should focus on organizational capacity building and assessing change at the organizational level.