Literature DB >> 33646806

Who is susceptible to online health misinformation? A test of four psychosocial hypotheses.

Laura D Scherer1, Jon McPhetres2, Gordon Pennycook2, Allison Kempe1, Larry A Allen1, Christopher E Knoepke1, Channing E Tate1, Daniel D Matlock1.   

Abstract

Objective: Health misinformation on social media threatens public health. One question that could lend insight into how and through whom misinformation spreads is whether certain people are susceptible to many types of health misinformation, regardless of the health topic at hand. This study provided an initial answer to this question and also tested four hypotheses concerning the psychosocial attributes of people who are susceptible to health misinformation: (1) deficits in knowledge or skill, (2) preexisting attitudes, (3) trust in health care and/or science, and (4) cognitive miserliness. Method: Participants in a national U.S. survey (N = 923) rated the perceived accuracy and influence of true and false social media posts about statin medications, cancer treatment, and the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine and then responded to individual difference and demographic questions.
Results: Perceived accuracy of health misinformation was strongly correlated across statins, cancer, and the HPV vaccine (rs ≥ .70), indicating that individuals who are susceptible to misinformation about one of these topics are very likely to believe misinformation about the other topics as well. Misinformation susceptibility across all three topics was most strongly predicted by lower educational attainment and health literacy, distrust in the health care system, and positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. Conclusions: A person who is susceptible to online misinformation about one health topic may be susceptible to many types of health misinformation. Individuals who were more susceptible to health misinformation had less education and health literacy, less health care trust, and more positive attitudes toward alternative medicine. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Year:  2021        PMID: 33646806     DOI: 10.1037/hea0000978

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Psychol        ISSN: 0278-6133            Impact factor:   4.267


  9 in total

Review 1.  Online Medical Misinformation in Cancer: Distinguishing Fact From Fiction.

Authors:  Eleonora Teplinsky; Sara Beltrán Ponce; Emily K Drake; Ann Meredith Garcia; Stacy Loeb; G J van Londen; Deanna Teoh; Michael Thompson; Lidia Schapira
Journal:  JCO Oncol Pract       Date:  2022-03-31

2.  Have vaccine hesitancy models oversimplified a complex problem to our detriment? The Adapted Royal Society of Canada vaccine uptake framework.

Authors:  N E MacDonald; E Dube; J L Comeau
Journal:  Vaccine       Date:  2022-05-28       Impact factor: 4.169

Review 3.  Misinformation: susceptibility, spread, and interventions to immunize the public.

Authors:  Sander van der Linden
Journal:  Nat Med       Date:  2022-03-10       Impact factor: 53.440

4.  Sharing Online Health Information With Physicians: Understanding the Associations Among Patient Characteristics, Directness of Sharing, and Physician-Patient Relationship.

Authors:  Siyue Li; Kexin Wang
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2022-03-30

5.  Social Psychological Predictors of Belief in Fake News in the Run-Up to the 2019 Hungarian Elections: The Importance of Conspiracy Mentality Supports the Notion of Ideological Symmetry in Fake News Belief.

Authors:  Zea Szebeni; Jan-Erik Lönnqvist; Inga Jasinskaja-Lahti
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2021-12-24

6.  COVID-19 and Vitamin D Misinformation on YouTube: Content Analysis.

Authors:  Emma K Quinn; Shelby Fenton; Chelsea A Ford-Sahibzada; Andrew Harper; Alessandro R Marcon; Timothy Caulfield; Sajjad S Fazel; Cheryl E Peters
Journal:  JMIR Infodemiology       Date:  2022-03-14

7.  Exploring content of misinformation about HPV vaccine on twitter.

Authors:  Melanie L Kornides; Sarah Badlis; Katharine J Head; Mary Putt; Joseph Cappella; Graciela Gonzalez-Hernadez
Journal:  J Behav Med       Date:  2022-07-27

8.  Medical Decision Style and COVID-19 Behavior.

Authors:  Gustav Tinghög; Liam Strand
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2022-02-16       Impact factor: 2.749

9.  South Asian Youth as Vaccine Agents of Change (SAY-VAC): evaluation of a public health programme to mobilise and empower South Asian youth to foster COVID-19 vaccine-related evidence-based dialogue in the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, Canada.

Authors:  Sujane Kandasamy; Archchun Ariyarajah; Jayneel Limbachia; Derrick An; Luke Lopez; Baanu Manoharan; Evan Pacht; Adrienne Silver; Abhilash Uddandam; Karan Mukesh Vansjalia; Natalie C Williams; Sonia S Anand
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-09-23       Impact factor: 3.006

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.