Understanding health knowledge failures: uncertainty versus misinformation.

IF 3.9 2区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
Peter J Schulz, Kent Nakamoto
{"title":"Understanding health knowledge failures: uncertainty versus misinformation.","authors":"Peter J Schulz, Kent Nakamoto","doi":"10.1038/s41598-025-06749-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Studies of health literacy often employ knowledge measures and typically focus on the correct answers as reflections of the level of (accurate) knowledge and literacy. The wrong answers are treated as failures but usually without further consideration. This paper argues for the importance of distinguishing two forms of knowledge failure-being uninformed(uncertain about information) and being misinformed(believing objectively wrong information)-because of their differing effects on communication responses and associated judgments and decisions. A measure is developed from the incorrect answers indicating error due to uncertainty versus error due to misinformation. In a survey of a representative sample survey of Swiss adults, the uninformed are more likely than the misinformed to hold positive beliefs and attitudes toward vaccination, recommend them to others, and received more vaccinations themselves. The effects are distinguished from those of objective knowledge and suggest that the misinformed form a distinctive group. The importance of separately measuring and understanding knowledge failures to consumer judgement, decision, and welfare are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":21811,"journal":{"name":"Scientific Reports","volume":"15 1","pages":"23867"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12227767/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scientific Reports","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-025-06749-5","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Studies of health literacy often employ knowledge measures and typically focus on the correct answers as reflections of the level of (accurate) knowledge and literacy. The wrong answers are treated as failures but usually without further consideration. This paper argues for the importance of distinguishing two forms of knowledge failure-being uninformed(uncertain about information) and being misinformed(believing objectively wrong information)-because of their differing effects on communication responses and associated judgments and decisions. A measure is developed from the incorrect answers indicating error due to uncertainty versus error due to misinformation. In a survey of a representative sample survey of Swiss adults, the uninformed are more likely than the misinformed to hold positive beliefs and attitudes toward vaccination, recommend them to others, and received more vaccinations themselves. The effects are distinguished from those of objective knowledge and suggest that the misinformed form a distinctive group. The importance of separately measuring and understanding knowledge failures to consumer judgement, decision, and welfare are discussed.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

理解健康知识缺失:不确定性与错误信息。
对卫生知识素养的研究通常采用知识测量方法,通常侧重于反映(准确)知识和素养水平的正确答案。错误的答案被视为失败,但通常不会进一步考虑。本文论证了区分两种形式的知识失败的重要性——不知情(对信息不确定)和被误导(相信客观上错误的信息)——因为它们对沟通反应和相关判断和决策的不同影响。一种测量方法是根据不确定导致的误差与错误信息导致的误差的不正确答案来制定的。在一项针对瑞士成年人的代表性抽样调查中,与被误导的人相比,不知情的人更有可能对疫苗接种持积极的信念和态度,并向他人推荐疫苗,并且自己接种了更多的疫苗。这种影响与客观知识的影响不同,表明被误导的人形成了一个独特的群体。分别测量和理解知识失败对消费者判断、决策和福利的重要性进行了讨论。
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
Scientific Reports
Scientific Reports Natural Science Disciplines-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
4.30%
发文量
19567
审稿时长
3.9 months
期刊介绍: We publish original research from all areas of the natural sciences, psychology, medicine and engineering. You can learn more about what we publish by browsing our specific scientific subject areas below or explore Scientific Reports by browsing all articles and collections. Scientific Reports has a 2-year impact factor: 4.380 (2021), and is the 6th most-cited journal in the world, with more than 540,000 citations in 2020 (Clarivate Analytics, 2021). •Engineering Engineering covers all aspects of engineering, technology, and applied science. It plays a crucial role in the development of technologies to address some of the world''s biggest challenges, helping to save lives and improve the way we live. •Physical sciences Physical sciences are those academic disciplines that aim to uncover the underlying laws of nature — often written in the language of mathematics. It is a collective term for areas of study including astronomy, chemistry, materials science and physics. •Earth and environmental sciences Earth and environmental sciences cover all aspects of Earth and planetary science and broadly encompass solid Earth processes, surface and atmospheric dynamics, Earth system history, climate and climate change, marine and freshwater systems, and ecology. It also considers the interactions between humans and these systems. •Biological sciences Biological sciences encompass all the divisions of natural sciences examining various aspects of vital processes. The concept includes anatomy, physiology, cell biology, biochemistry and biophysics, and covers all organisms from microorganisms, animals to plants. •Health sciences The health sciences study health, disease and healthcare. This field of study aims to develop knowledge, interventions and technology for use in healthcare to improve the treatment of patients.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信