Javascript must be enabled to continue!
Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review
View through CrossRef
Background
Although at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown. Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated.
Objective
This systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.
Methods
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media. We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge. We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms.
Results
A total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms. The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%). Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%). Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana. Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected. Health misinformation related to diets or pro–eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%). Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%).
Conclusions
The prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs. However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high. Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.
JMIR Publications Inc.
Title: Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review
Description:
Background
Although at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health misinformation, the magnitude of this problem is still unknown.
Consequently, it is fundamental to discover both the most prevalent health topics and the social media platforms from which these topics are initially framed and subsequently disseminated.
Objective
This systematic review aimed to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.
Methods
We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019, with a focus on the study of health misinformation in social media.
We defined health misinformation as a health-related claim that is based on anecdotal evidence, false, or misleading owing to the lack of existing scientific knowledge.
We included (1) articles that focused on health misinformation in social media, including those in which the authors discussed the consequences or purposes of health misinformation and (2) studies that described empirical findings regarding the measurement of health misinformation on these platforms.
Results
A total of 69 studies were identified as eligible, and they covered a wide range of health topics and social media platforms.
The topics were articulated around the following six principal categories: vaccines (32%), drugs or smoking (22%), noncommunicable diseases (19%), pandemics (10%), eating disorders (9%), and medical treatments (7%).
Studies were mainly based on the following five methodological approaches: social network analysis (28%), evaluating content (26%), evaluating quality (24%), content/text analysis (16%), and sentiment analysis (6%).
Health misinformation was most prevalent in studies related to smoking products and drugs such as opioids and marijuana.
Posts with misinformation reached 87% in some studies.
Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common (43%), with the human papilloma virus vaccine being the most affected.
Health misinformation related to diets or pro–eating disorder arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics (36%).
Studies focused on diseases (ie, noncommunicable diseases and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates (40%), especially in the case of cancer.
Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments (30%).
Conclusions
The prevalence of health misinformation was the highest on Twitter and on issues related to smoking products and drugs.
However, misinformation on major public health issues, such as vaccines and diseases, was also high.
Our study offers a comprehensive characterization of the dominant health misinformation topics and a comprehensive description of their prevalence on different social media platforms, which can guide future studies and help in the development of evidence-based digital policy action plans.
Related Results
Burden of the Beast
Burden of the Beast
Introduction
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, and its fluctuating waves of infections and the emergence of new variants, Indigenous populations in Australia and worldwide have re...
Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review (Preprint)
Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review (Preprint)
BACKGROUND
Although at present there is broad agreement among researchers, health professionals, and policy makers on the need to control and combat health ...
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Evaluating the Science to Inform the Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans Midcourse Report
Abstract
The Physical Activity Guidelines for Americans (Guidelines) advises older adults to be as active as possible. Yet, despite the well documented benefits of physical a...
Frontline Experiences in Responding to Health Misinformation: Perspectives of Health Educators in Lagos State, Nigeria
Frontline Experiences in Responding to Health Misinformation: Perspectives of Health Educators in Lagos State, Nigeria
Abstract
Introduction
The rapid spread of health misinformation presents a growing challenge for public health systems worldwide. Misinformation can undermine publ...
Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses
Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses
ABSTRACTObjective: Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. One question that could lend insight into how and through whom misinformation spreads is whether c...
Misinformation Finds Them
Misinformation Finds Them
In this groundbreaking study, Misinformation Finds Them unearths how the perceived threat of misinformation effects on other people is just as potent –if not more so – than the act...
Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges
Misinformation on Misinformation: Conceptual and Methodological Challenges
Alarmist narratives about online misinformation continue to gain traction despite evidence that its prevalence and impact are overstated. Drawing on research examining the use of b...
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
Do evidence summaries increase health policy‐makers' use of evidence from systematic reviews? A systematic review
This review summarizes the evidence from six randomized controlled trials that judged the effectiveness of systematic review summaries on policymakers' decision making, or the most...

