Sharing Reliable COVID-19 Information and Countering Misinformation: In-Depth Interviews With Information Advocates.

IF 3.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
JMIR infodemiology Pub Date : 2023-10-20 DOI:10.2196/47677
Alexis M Koskan, Shalini Sivanandam, Kristy Roschke, Jonathan Irby, Deborah L Helitzer, Bradley Doebbeling
{"title":"Sharing Reliable COVID-19 Information and Countering Misinformation: In-Depth Interviews With Information Advocates.","authors":"Alexis M Koskan, Shalini Sivanandam, Kristy Roschke, Jonathan Irby, Deborah L Helitzer, Bradley Doebbeling","doi":"10.2196/47677","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The rampant spread of misinformation about COVID-19 has been linked to a lower uptake of preventive behaviors such as vaccination. Some individuals, however, have been able to resist believing in COVID-19 misinformation. Further, some have acted as information advocates, spreading accurate information and combating misinformation about the pandemic.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>To identify participants for this study, we used outcomes of survey research of a national sample of 1498 adults to find individuals who scored a perfect or near-perfect score on COVID-19 knowledge questions and who also self-reported actively sharing or responding to news information within the past week. Among this subsample, we selected a diverse sample of 25 individuals to participate in a 1-time, phone-based, semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the team conducted an inductive thematic analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants reported trusting in science, data-driven sources, public health, medical experts, and organizations. They had mixed levels of trust in various social media sites to find reliable health information, noting distrust in particular sites such as Facebook (Meta Platforms) and more trust in specific accounts on Twitter (X Corp) and Reddit (Advance Publications). They reported relying on multiple sources of information to find facts instead of depending on their intuition and emotions to inform their perspectives about COVID-19. Participants determined the credibility of information by cross-referencing it, identifying information sources and their potential biases, clarifying information they were unclear about with health care providers, and using fact-checking sites to verify information. Most participants reported ignoring misinformation. Others, however, responded to misinformation by flagging, reporting, and responding to it on social media sites. Some described feeling more comfortable responding to misinformation in person than online. Participants' responses to misinformation posted on the internet depended on various factors, including their relationship to the individual posting the misinformation, their level of outrage in response to it, and how dangerous they perceived it could be if others acted on such information.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This research illustrates how well-informed US adults assess the credibility of COVID-19 information, how they share it, and how they respond to misinformation. It illustrates web-based and offline information practices and describes how the role of interpersonal relationships contributes to their preferences for acting on such information. Implications of our findings could help inform future training in health information literacy, interpersonal information advocacy, and organizational information advocacy. It is critical to continue working to share reliable health information and debunk misinformation, particularly since this information informs health behaviors.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10625073/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/47677","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The rampant spread of misinformation about COVID-19 has been linked to a lower uptake of preventive behaviors such as vaccination. Some individuals, however, have been able to resist believing in COVID-19 misinformation. Further, some have acted as information advocates, spreading accurate information and combating misinformation about the pandemic.

Objective: This work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices.

Methods: To identify participants for this study, we used outcomes of survey research of a national sample of 1498 adults to find individuals who scored a perfect or near-perfect score on COVID-19 knowledge questions and who also self-reported actively sharing or responding to news information within the past week. Among this subsample, we selected a diverse sample of 25 individuals to participate in a 1-time, phone-based, semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the team conducted an inductive thematic analysis.

Results: Participants reported trusting in science, data-driven sources, public health, medical experts, and organizations. They had mixed levels of trust in various social media sites to find reliable health information, noting distrust in particular sites such as Facebook (Meta Platforms) and more trust in specific accounts on Twitter (X Corp) and Reddit (Advance Publications). They reported relying on multiple sources of information to find facts instead of depending on their intuition and emotions to inform their perspectives about COVID-19. Participants determined the credibility of information by cross-referencing it, identifying information sources and their potential biases, clarifying information they were unclear about with health care providers, and using fact-checking sites to verify information. Most participants reported ignoring misinformation. Others, however, responded to misinformation by flagging, reporting, and responding to it on social media sites. Some described feeling more comfortable responding to misinformation in person than online. Participants' responses to misinformation posted on the internet depended on various factors, including their relationship to the individual posting the misinformation, their level of outrage in response to it, and how dangerous they perceived it could be if others acted on such information.

Conclusions: This research illustrates how well-informed US adults assess the credibility of COVID-19 information, how they share it, and how they respond to misinformation. It illustrates web-based and offline information practices and describes how the role of interpersonal relationships contributes to their preferences for acting on such information. Implications of our findings could help inform future training in health information literacy, interpersonal information advocacy, and organizational information advocacy. It is critical to continue working to share reliable health information and debunk misinformation, particularly since this information informs health behaviors.

分享可靠的COVID-19信息,打击错误信息:对信息倡导者的深度访谈(预印本)
背景:有关 COVID-19 的错误信息的大量传播与疫苗接种等预防行为的减少有关。然而,有些人却不相信 COVID-19 的错误信息。此外,有些人还充当了信息倡导者,传播准确的信息并打击有关该流行病的错误信息:本研究探讨了知识渊博的信息倡导者的观点、行为和与信息相关的做法:为了确定本研究的参与者,我们利用对全国 1498 名成年人的抽样调查研究成果,找到了在 COVID-19 知识问题上获得满分或接近满分,并且自我报告在过去一周内积极分享或回应新闻信息的人。在这个子样本中,我们选取了 25 个不同的样本,让他们参加一次基于电话的半结构化访谈。我们对访谈进行了录音和转录,并进行了归纳式主题分析:结果:参与者表示信任科学、数据驱动来源、公共卫生、医学专家和组织。他们对在各种社交媒体网站上寻找可靠健康信息的信任程度不一,对 Facebook(Meta Platforms)等特定网站不信任,而对 Twitter(X Corp)和 Reddit(Advance Publications)上的特定账户更信任。他们报告说,他们依靠多种信息来源来寻找事实,而不是依靠直觉和情感来了解他们对 COVID-19 的看法。参与者通过交叉引用信息、识别信息来源及其潜在偏见、向医疗服务提供者澄清他们不清楚的信息以及使用事实核查网站核实信息来确定信息的可信度。大多数参与者表示对错误信息视而不见。然而,其他人则通过在社交媒体网站上标记、报告和回应错误信息来应对错误信息。一些人表示,与在网上相比,亲自回应不实信息感觉更自在。参与者对互联网上发布的错误信息的反应取决于多种因素,包括他们与发布错误信息者的关系、他们对错误信息的愤怒程度,以及他们认为如果其他人根据这些信息采取行动会有多危险:这项研究说明了消息灵通的美国成年人如何评估 COVID-19 信息的可信度,他们如何分享这些信息,以及他们如何应对错误信息。它说明了基于网络和离线的信息实践,并描述了人际关系的作用如何影响他们对此类信息采取行动的偏好。我们的研究结果有助于为未来的健康信息扫盲、人际信息宣传和组织信息宣传培训提供参考。继续努力分享可靠的健康信息并揭露错误信息至关重要,尤其是因为这些信息会影响人们的健康行为。
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
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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