Skip to main content

Lund University Publications

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

Infodemics and health misinformation : a systematic review of reviews

Do Nascimento, Israel Júnior Borges ; Pizarro, Ana Beatriz ; Almeida, Jussara M. ; Azzopardi-Muscat, Natasha ; Gonçalves, Marcos André ; Björklund, Maria LU orcid and Novillo-Ortiz, David (2022) In Bulletin of the World Health Organization 100(9). p.544-561
Abstract

Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified... (More)

Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people’s digital and health literacy.

(Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
; ; ; ; ; and
organization
publishing date
type
Contribution to journal
publication status
published
subject
in
Bulletin of the World Health Organization
volume
100
issue
9
pages
18 pages
publisher
World Health Organization
external identifiers
  • scopus:85137143238
  • pmid:36062247
ISSN
0042-9686
DOI
10.2471/BLT.21.287654
language
English
LU publication?
yes
id
39da6f97-093e-4e40-98b4-00cbb937cc7d
date added to LUP
2022-11-14 13:34:53
date last changed
2024-04-30 16:17:09
@article{39da6f97-093e-4e40-98b4-00cbb937cc7d,
  abstract     = {{<p>Objective To compare and summarize the literature regarding infodemics and health misinformation, and to identify challenges and opportunities for addressing the issues of infodemics. Methods We searched MEDLINE®, Embase®, Cochrane Library of Systematic Reviews, Scopus and Epistemonikos on 6 May 2022 for systematic reviews analysing infodemics, misinformation, disinformation and fake news related to health. We grouped studies based on similarity and retrieved evidence on challenges and opportunities. We used the AMSTAR 2 approach to assess the reviews’ methodological quality. To evaluate the quality of the evidence, we used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation guidelines. Findings Our search identified 31 systematic reviews, of which 17 were published. The proportion of health-related misinformation on social media ranged from 0.2% to 28.8%. Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Instagram are critical in disseminating the rapid and far-reaching information. The most negative consequences of health misinformation are the increase of misleading or incorrect interpretations of available evidence, impact on mental health, misallocation of health resources and an increase in vaccination hesitancy. The increase of unreliable health information delays care provision and increases the occurrence of hateful and divisive rhetoric. Social media could also be a useful tool to combat misinformation during crises. Included reviews highlight the poor quality of published studies during health crises. Conclusion Available evidence suggests that infodemics during health emergencies have an adverse effect on society. Multisectoral actions to counteract infodemics and health misinformation are needed, including developing legal policies, creating and promoting awareness campaigns, improving health-related content in mass media and increasing people’s digital and health literacy.</p>}},
  author       = {{Do Nascimento, Israel Júnior Borges and Pizarro, Ana Beatriz and Almeida, Jussara M. and Azzopardi-Muscat, Natasha and Gonçalves, Marcos André and Björklund, Maria and Novillo-Ortiz, David}},
  issn         = {{0042-9686}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  month        = {{09}},
  number       = {{9}},
  pages        = {{544--561}},
  publisher    = {{World Health Organization}},
  series       = {{Bulletin of the World Health Organization}},
  title        = {{Infodemics and health misinformation : a systematic review of reviews}},
  url          = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.21.287654}},
  doi          = {{10.2471/BLT.21.287654}},
  volume       = {{100}},
  year         = {{2022}},
}