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}
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.