Health misinformation: protocol for a hybrid concept analysis and development.

HRB open research Pub Date : 2024-01-31 eCollection Date: 2022-01-01 DOI:10.12688/hrbopenres.13641.2
Johanna Pope, Paula Byrne, Declan Devane, Tina D Purnat, Maura Dowling
{"title":"Health misinformation: protocol for a hybrid concept analysis and development.","authors":"Johanna Pope, Paula Byrne, Declan Devane, Tina D Purnat, Maura Dowling","doi":"10.12688/hrbopenres.13641.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Misinformation represents a serious and growing concern for public health and healthcare health; and has attracted much interest from researchers, media, and the public over recent years. Despite increased concern about the impacts of misinformation on health and wellbeing, however, the concept of health misinformation remains underdeveloped. In particular, there is a need to clarify how certain types of health information come to be designated as \"misinformation,\" what characteristics are associated with this classification, and how the concept of misinformation is applied in health contexts.</p><p><strong>Aim: </strong>Developing a shared understanding of what it means for health information to be \"misinformation\" is an important first step to accurately identifying at-risk groups, clarifying pathways of vulnerability, and agreeing goals for intervention. It will also help to ensure that misinformation interventions are accessible, acceptable, and of benefit to the populations to which they are directed. We will therefore examine the characteristics, measurement, and applications of misinformation in health contexts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We will undertake a hybrid concept analysis, following a framework from Schwartz-Barcott & Kim (2000). This framework comprises three phases: a theoretical phase, fieldwork phase, and final analysis phase. In the theoretical phase, a search of seven electronic citation databases (PsycInfo, socINDEX, JSTOR, CINAHL, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed Central via PubMed, and ScienceDirect) will be conducted in order to identify original research, review, and theoretical papers, published in English between 2016 and 2022, which examine \"health misinformation.\" Data from the literature will be synthesised using evolutionary concept analysis methods from Rodgers (2000). In the fieldwork phase, a purposive sampling strategy will be employed to recruit stakeholders for participation in semi-structured interviews. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. The final phase will integrate findings from the theoretical and fieldwork analyses.</p>","PeriodicalId":73254,"journal":{"name":"HRB open research","volume":"5 ","pages":"70"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11621614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"HRB open research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13641.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Misinformation represents a serious and growing concern for public health and healthcare health; and has attracted much interest from researchers, media, and the public over recent years. Despite increased concern about the impacts of misinformation on health and wellbeing, however, the concept of health misinformation remains underdeveloped. In particular, there is a need to clarify how certain types of health information come to be designated as "misinformation," what characteristics are associated with this classification, and how the concept of misinformation is applied in health contexts.

Aim: Developing a shared understanding of what it means for health information to be "misinformation" is an important first step to accurately identifying at-risk groups, clarifying pathways of vulnerability, and agreeing goals for intervention. It will also help to ensure that misinformation interventions are accessible, acceptable, and of benefit to the populations to which they are directed. We will therefore examine the characteristics, measurement, and applications of misinformation in health contexts.

Methods: We will undertake a hybrid concept analysis, following a framework from Schwartz-Barcott & Kim (2000). This framework comprises three phases: a theoretical phase, fieldwork phase, and final analysis phase. In the theoretical phase, a search of seven electronic citation databases (PsycInfo, socINDEX, JSTOR, CINAHL, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed Central via PubMed, and ScienceDirect) will be conducted in order to identify original research, review, and theoretical papers, published in English between 2016 and 2022, which examine "health misinformation." Data from the literature will be synthesised using evolutionary concept analysis methods from Rodgers (2000). In the fieldwork phase, a purposive sampling strategy will be employed to recruit stakeholders for participation in semi-structured interviews. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. The final phase will integrate findings from the theoretical and fieldwork analyses.

卫生误传:混合概念分析和发展协议。
背景:虚假信息对公共卫生和医疗保健健康构成了严重和日益严重的关切;近年来引起了研究人员、媒体和公众的极大兴趣。然而,尽管人们越来越关注错误信息对健康和福祉的影响,但健康错误信息的概念仍然不发达。特别是,有必要澄清某些类型的卫生信息如何被指定为“错误信息”,与这种分类相关的特征是什么,以及错误信息的概念如何应用于卫生领域。目的:就卫生信息是“错误信息”的含义达成共识,是准确识别风险群体、澄清易受伤害的途径和商定干预目标的重要第一步。它还将有助于确保错误信息干预措施是可获得的、可接受的,并使其所针对的人群受益。因此,我们将研究卫生背景下错误信息的特征、测量和应用。方法:我们将按照Schwartz-Barcott & Kim(2000)的框架进行混合概念分析。该框架包括三个阶段:理论阶段、实地调查阶段和最终分析阶段。在理论阶段,将对七个电子引文数据库(PsycInfo、socINDEX、JSTOR、CINAHL、Scopus、MEDLINE和PubMed Central(通过PubMed和ScienceDirect))进行搜索,以确定2016年至2022年间发表的英文原创研究、综述和理论论文,这些论文检查了“健康错误信息”。文献中的数据将使用Rodgers(2000)的进化概念分析方法进行综合。在实地工作阶段,将采用有目的的抽样策略来招募利益相关者参加半结构化访谈。访谈将采用专题分析进行分析。最后阶段将整合理论和实地分析的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
6 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信