Exploring online oral health misinformation: a content analysis.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q2 Dentistry
Matheus Lotto, Olivia Santana Jorge, Maria Aparecida de Andrade Moreira Machado, Thiago Cruvinel
{"title":"Exploring online oral health misinformation: a content analysis.","authors":"Matheus Lotto,&nbsp;Olivia Santana Jorge,&nbsp;Maria Aparecida de Andrade Moreira Machado,&nbsp;Thiago Cruvinel","doi":"10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0049","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Considering the unfavorable implications of health falsehoods and the lack of dental research into information disorder, this study aimed to identify and characterize online oral health misinformation. A total of 410 websites published in English were retrieved using Google Advanced Search and screened by two independent investigators to compile falsehoods through thematic content analysis. Afterward, 318 pieces of misinformation were consensually divided into four groups concerning their informational interest (G1), financial, psychological, and social interests produced/disseminated by non-dental professionals (G2) or by dental professionals (G3), and political interests (G4). Social media (Facebook and Instagram) and fact-checking tool (Snopes) were also screened to determine the spread of falsehoods by identifying corresponding posts and warnings. As a result, misinformation was mainly associated with gum diseases (12.0%), root canal treatment (11.6%), toothache (10.4%), fluoride (10.4%), and dental caries (9.8%), with a special highlight on recommendations for the usage of natural products, toxicity concerns, and anti-fluoridation propaganda. Additionally, most misinformation was allocated in G3 (41.9%), which presented a statistically higher frequency of financial interests than G4. Finally, falsehoods were considerably identified on Facebook (62.9%) and Instagram (49.4%), especially G3 and G4. Nevertheless, Snopes has debunked only 5.9% of these content items. Therefore, misinformation was predominantly produced or disseminated by dental professionals mainly motivated by financial interests and usually linked to alternative/natural treatments. Although these items were shared on social media, fact-checking agencies seemed to have limited knowledge about their dissemination.</p>","PeriodicalId":48942,"journal":{"name":"Brazilian Oral Research","volume":"37 ","pages":"e049"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brazilian Oral Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1590/1807-3107bor-2023.vol37.0049","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Dentistry","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considering the unfavorable implications of health falsehoods and the lack of dental research into information disorder, this study aimed to identify and characterize online oral health misinformation. A total of 410 websites published in English were retrieved using Google Advanced Search and screened by two independent investigators to compile falsehoods through thematic content analysis. Afterward, 318 pieces of misinformation were consensually divided into four groups concerning their informational interest (G1), financial, psychological, and social interests produced/disseminated by non-dental professionals (G2) or by dental professionals (G3), and political interests (G4). Social media (Facebook and Instagram) and fact-checking tool (Snopes) were also screened to determine the spread of falsehoods by identifying corresponding posts and warnings. As a result, misinformation was mainly associated with gum diseases (12.0%), root canal treatment (11.6%), toothache (10.4%), fluoride (10.4%), and dental caries (9.8%), with a special highlight on recommendations for the usage of natural products, toxicity concerns, and anti-fluoridation propaganda. Additionally, most misinformation was allocated in G3 (41.9%), which presented a statistically higher frequency of financial interests than G4. Finally, falsehoods were considerably identified on Facebook (62.9%) and Instagram (49.4%), especially G3 and G4. Nevertheless, Snopes has debunked only 5.9% of these content items. Therefore, misinformation was predominantly produced or disseminated by dental professionals mainly motivated by financial interests and usually linked to alternative/natural treatments. Although these items were shared on social media, fact-checking agencies seemed to have limited knowledge about their dissemination.

探索在线口腔健康错误信息:内容分析。
考虑到健康谎言的不利影响和缺乏对信息混乱的牙科研究,本研究旨在识别和表征在线口腔健康错误信息。使用谷歌高级搜索检索了410个英文网站,并由两名独立调查员通过主题内容分析进行筛选,以汇编虚假信息。随后,318条错误信息被分成四组,分别是信息利益(G1)、非牙科专业人员(G2)或牙科专业人员(G3)产生/传播的金融、心理和社会利益,以及政治利益(G4)。社交媒体(Facebook和Instagram)和事实核查工具(Snopes)也被筛选,通过识别相应的帖子和警告来确定虚假信息的传播。因此,错误信息主要与牙龈疾病(12.0%)、根管治疗(11.6%)、牙痛(10.4%)、氟化物(10.4%)和龋齿(9.8%)有关,特别突出的是建议使用天然产品、毒性问题和反氟化宣传。此外,G3的错误信息分配最多(41.9%),统计上金融利益的频率高于G4。最后,在Facebook(62.9%)和Instagram(49.4%)上,尤其是G3和G4上,虚假信息的识别程度相当高。然而,Snopes只揭穿了其中5.9%的内容。因此,错误信息主要是由牙科专业人员制造或传播的,主要是出于经济利益的动机,通常与替代/自然治疗有关。尽管这些内容在社交媒体上被分享,但事实核查机构似乎对它们的传播知之甚少。
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
Brazilian Oral Research
Brazilian Oral Research DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
4.00%
发文量
107
审稿时长
12 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:604180095
Book学术官方微信