Understanding Interventions to Address Infodemics Through Epidemiological, Socioecological, and Environmental Health Models: Framework Analysis.

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by a barrage of false, misleading, and manipulated information that inhibited effective pandemic response and led to thousands of preventable deaths. Recognition of the urgent public health threat posed by this infodemic led to the development of numerous infodemic management interventions by a wide range of actors. The need to respond rapidly and with limited information sometimes came at the expense of strategy and conceptual rigor. Given limited funding for public health communication and growing politicization of countermisinformation efforts, responses to future infodemics should be informed by a systematic and conceptually grounded evaluation of the successes and shortcomings of existing interventions to ensure credibility of the field and evidence-based action.

Objectives: This study sought to identify gaps and opportunities in existing infodemic management interventions and to assess the use of public health frameworks to structure responses to infodemics.

Methods: We expanded a previously developed dataset of infodemic management interventions, spanning guidelines, policies, and tools from governments, academic institutions, nonprofits, media companies, and other organizations, with 379 interventions included in total. We applied framework analysis to describe and interpret patterns within these interventions through their alignment with codes derived from 3 frameworks selected for their prominence in public health and infodemic-related scholarly discourse: the epidemiological model, the socioecological model, and the environmental health framework.

Results: The epidemiological model revealed the need for rigorous, transparent risk assessments to triage misinformation. The socioecological model demonstrated an opportunity for greater coordination across levels of influence, with only 11% of interventions receiving multiple socioecological codes, and more robust partnerships with existing organizations. The environmental health framework showed that sustained approaches that comprehensively address all influences on the information environment are needed, representing only 19% of the dataset.

Conclusions: Responses to future infodemics would benefit from cross-sector coordination, adoption of measurable and meaningful goals, and alignment with public health frameworks, which provide critical conceptual grounding for infodemic response approaches and ensure comprehensiveness of approach. Beyond individual interventions, a funded coordination mechanism can provide overarching strategic direction and promote collaboration.