Study identifies urgent need for improved research on how to respond to misleading health information
Brown University
The study, published in Health Affairs on
Wednesday, Nov. 15, shows where existing research is lacking and how it can be
improved. For example, when studies tested the impact of COVID-19
misinformation interventions, they used significantly different examples of misinformation,
assessed 47 outcomes yet rarely measured public health outcomes such as intent
to vaccinate.
The authors recommend that the research community makes
evidence comparable and actionable, and includes public health experts in the
design and delivery of health misinformation interventions.
“Public health practitioners, journalists, community organizations and other trusted messengers are tasked with responding to health misinformation every day,” said co-author Stefanie Friedhoff, an associate professor of the practice at Brown’s School of Public Health and co-director of the Information Futures Lab.
“While this is a complex area of study, we have a
responsibility toward those on the frontlines to generate evidence that is
meaningful and as actionable as possible. Our review can move the needle by
identifying what is missing and where the research community needs to go next.”
Misinformation is “information that is false, inaccurate
or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time,” according to the Office of the U.S. Surgeon General.
Government agencies, public health authorities and social media platforms have
employed various measures to counter misinformation that emerged during the
COVID-19 pandemic.
The researchers’ evidence review covered 50 papers
published between Jan. 1, 2020, and Feb. 24, 2023, that in total investigated
the efficacy of 119 misinformation interventions.
The research team categorized and explored different
types of COVID-19 misinformation examples used in the studies, such as
“vaccines are not safe” or “garlic water can cure COVID-19.” The team also
analyzed the ways in which study participants were exposed to such content —
whether through video, text, images, audio or combinations of these.
While they found some evidence supporting interventions
such as accuracy prompts, debunks and media literacy tips in mitigating either
the spread of or belief in COVID-19 misinformation, the review revealed major
challenges with the current approach to studying health misinformation more
broadly.
“Examining misinformation and its impact with greater granularity allowed us to more clearly discern if an intervention worked on a specific kind of misinformation, and in what context,” said co-author Rory Smith, research and investigation manager at the Information Futures Lab.
“That
is important because not all misinformation is the same, and details such as
the delivery mechanisms and messengers matter, as other studies have also
shown.”
The researchers found that most studies measured outcomes
such as likelihood to share misinformation or perceived accuracy of
misinformation, while only 18% of studies measured any public health-related
outcomes, such as intent to vaccinate or self-reported mask wearing.
To more clearly discern the impact of various
interventions and make evidence actionable for public health, the field
urgently needs to include more public health experts in intervention design and
implementation, the authors concluded.
An increased focus on misinformation research emerged
after concerns about the role of misinformation in elections, so many of the
key researchers come from political science, explained co-author Claire Wardle,
a professor of the practice at Brown’s School of Public Health and co-director
of the Information Futures Lab.
“As we have seen misinformation impact a number of
different topics and issues, it is time researchers from different disciplines
investigating misinformation, including public health, to come together to
connect the dots,” Wardle said.
The research was supported by Brown
University’s Peter G. Peterson Foundation Pandemic Response Policy
Research Fund.
