应对与健康和环境有关的错误信息:系统性审查

Thaiane Oliveira, Nicolas de Oliveira Cardoso, Wagner de Lara Machado, Reynaldo Aragon Gonçalves, Rodrigo Quinan, Eduarda Zorgi Salvador, Camila Almeida, Aline Paes
{"title":"应对与健康和环境有关的错误信息:系统性审查","authors":"Thaiane Oliveira, Nicolas de Oliveira Cardoso, Wagner de Lara Machado, Reynaldo Aragon Gonçalves, Rodrigo Quinan, Eduarda Zorgi Salvador, Camila Almeida, Aline Paes","doi":"10.22323/2.23010901","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nConfronting misinformation related to health and the environment comprises one of the major global concerns. Therefore, this systematic literature review, aims to identify the most used strategies to confront misinformation related to health, and the environment. The relevance of the interventions was assessed considering the frequency with which they are used and reported as effective. Five widely used databases were searched between 2010 and 2021 (Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore). A total of 14.285 records were initially retrieved. Then, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 32 peer-reviewed papers were included and analyzed in depth through this review. The results indicate that interventions based on credible information (debunking) were the most used among the included studies, followed by exposure and correction (debunking), inoculation, information, and media literacy (prebunking), and deliberation prompts (nudging). Most {interventions had }an effect size between small and medium, but most effects are limited to a specific myth/belief. We also found that most studies are conducted in the U.S. Therefore, experimental replication with same and different beliefs as outcomes and interventions cross-cultural adaptation to other countries are recommended.","PeriodicalId":501088,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Science Communication","volume":"67 11","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Confronting misinformation related to health and the environment: a systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Thaiane Oliveira, Nicolas de Oliveira Cardoso, Wagner de Lara Machado, Reynaldo Aragon Gonçalves, Rodrigo Quinan, Eduarda Zorgi Salvador, Camila Almeida, Aline Paes\",\"doi\":\"10.22323/2.23010901\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nConfronting misinformation related to health and the environment comprises one of the major global concerns. Therefore, this systematic literature review, aims to identify the most used strategies to confront misinformation related to health, and the environment. The relevance of the interventions was assessed considering the frequency with which they are used and reported as effective. Five widely used databases were searched between 2010 and 2021 (Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore). A total of 14.285 records were initially retrieved. Then, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 32 peer-reviewed papers were included and analyzed in depth through this review. The results indicate that interventions based on credible information (debunking) were the most used among the included studies, followed by exposure and correction (debunking), inoculation, information, and media literacy (prebunking), and deliberation prompts (nudging). Most {interventions had }an effect size between small and medium, but most effects are limited to a specific myth/belief. We also found that most studies are conducted in the U.S. Therefore, experimental replication with same and different beliefs as outcomes and interventions cross-cultural adaptation to other countries are recommended.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501088,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Science Communication\",\"volume\":\"67 11\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Science Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23010901\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Science Communication","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23010901","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

应对与健康和环境有关的错误信息是全球关注的主要问题之一。因此,本系统性文献综述旨在确定应对与健康和环境有关的错误信息的最常用策略。考虑到干预措施的使用频率和报告的有效性,对干预措施的相关性进行了评估。在 2010 年至 2021 年期间,我们检索了五个广泛使用的数据库(Web of Science、Scopus、PsycINFO、Science Direct、IEEE Xplore)。最初共检索到 14 285 条记录。然后,在应用纳入和排除标准后,纳入了 32 篇同行评审论文,并通过本综述进行了深入分析。结果表明,在纳入的研究中,基于可信信息的干预措施(揭穿)使用最多,其次是曝光和纠正(揭穿)、接种、信息和媒体扫盲(揭穿前)以及审议提示(引导)。大多数{干预措施}的效果大小介于小型和中型之间,但大多数效果仅限于特定的神话/信仰。我们还发现,大多数研究都是在美国进行的。因此,我们建议以相同和不同的信仰为结果进行实验复制,并对干预措施进行跨文化调整,使其适用于其他国家。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Confronting misinformation related to health and the environment: a systematic review
Confronting misinformation related to health and the environment comprises one of the major global concerns. Therefore, this systematic literature review, aims to identify the most used strategies to confront misinformation related to health, and the environment. The relevance of the interventions was assessed considering the frequency with which they are used and reported as effective. Five widely used databases were searched between 2010 and 2021 (Web of Science, Scopus, PsycINFO, Science Direct, IEEE Xplore). A total of 14.285 records were initially retrieved. Then, after applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, 32 peer-reviewed papers were included and analyzed in depth through this review. The results indicate that interventions based on credible information (debunking) were the most used among the included studies, followed by exposure and correction (debunking), inoculation, information, and media literacy (prebunking), and deliberation prompts (nudging). Most {interventions had }an effect size between small and medium, but most effects are limited to a specific myth/belief. We also found that most studies are conducted in the U.S. Therefore, experimental replication with same and different beliefs as outcomes and interventions cross-cultural adaptation to other countries are recommended.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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