| Literature DB >> 35990766 |
Nanae Tanemura1, Tsuyoshi Chiba1.
Abstract
Consumers are increasingly able to easily access health information online about food products. However, consumers have difficulty identifying reliable health information from diverse sources along with information about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic because the inundation of information (both true and false) overwhelm consumers. We investigated the usefulness of a checklist confirmation scheme for identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information. Data were collected from June 30-July 1, 2021. First, we measured 700 participants' baseline health literacy levels by having them read unreliable health information about the efficacy of green tea intake in preventing COVID-19 based on the results of animal experimentation. Second, participants read an explanation with a five-step flowchart of how to identify reliable health information. Thereafter, we remeasured participants' health literacy levels. To identify the factors hindering the effect of the confirmation scheme, a logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, 77.9% (293/376) of those with low health literacy levels at baseline still had low literacy after the intervention. The factor that hindered the confirmation scheme's usefulness was benefit perceptions of food ingredients (OR: 0.493; 95% CI: 0.252-0.966). Consumers with higher benefit perceptions of a target product faced more difficulties using the confirmation scheme effectively. Therefore, the most effective strategies involve filtering information at the organizational level rather than the individual level, which should help consumers correctly identify misinformation concerning food and health and promote accurate decision-making.Entities:
Keywords: Education; Social policy
Year: 2022 PMID: 35990766 PMCID: PMC9376898 DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01293-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Humanit Soc Sci Commun ISSN: 2662-9992
Characteristics of the study sample (N = 700).
| Characteristics | % | |
|---|---|---|
| Age | ||
| Mean (SD) | 45.8 | (15.1) |
| Under 65 years | 607 | 86.7 |
| 65 years or older | 93 | 13.3 |
| Sex | ||
| Male | 350 | 50.0 |
| Female | 350 | 50.0 |
| Education level | ||
| Junior high/high-school graduate | 214 | 30.6 |
| Junior college graduate or higher | 486 | 69.4 |
| Source of information | ||
| TV | 421 | 60.1 |
| Radio | 61 | 8.7 |
| Newspaper, magazine, advertisement | 185 | 26.4 |
| Internet | 412 | 58.9 |
| Social networking service | 87 | 12.4 |
| Store front | 96 | 13.7 |
| Hospital | 126 | 18.0 |
| Pharmacy | 76 | 10.9 |
| Drugstore | 127 | 18.1 |
| Contact the company | 5 | 0.7 |
| Family | 161 | 23.0 |
| Friends/acquaintances | 125 | 17.9 |
| Other | 81 | 11.6 |
| Frequency of green tea intake | ||
| Daily | 218 | 31.1 |
| Sometimes | 333 | 47.6 |
| Do not drink | 149 | 21.3 |
| Benefit perceptions | ||
| Mean (SD) | 4.89 | (1.37) |
| Median (min–max) | 5.00 | (1–7) |
| a Low | 152 | 21.7 |
| High | 548 | 78.3 |
| Numeracy score | ||
| Mean (SD) | 4.30 | (1.08) |
| Median (min–max) | 4.25 | (1–6) |
| b Low | 322 | 46.0 |
| High | 378 | 54.0 |
SD standard deviation.
aLow < 5.00 ≤ high.
bLow < 4.25 ≤ high.
Status of consumers’ health literacy level at baseline (N = 700).
| Characteristics | Low | High | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | |||||
| All | ||||||
| 700 | 376 | 53.7 | 324 | 46.3 | ||
| Age (years) | ||||||
| Under 65 | 607 | 321 | 52.9 | 286 | 47.1 | |
| 65 or older | 93 | 55 | 59.1 | 38 | 40.9 | 0.267 |
| Sex | ||||||
| Male | 350 | 166 | 47.4 | 184 | 52.6 | |
| Female | 350 | 210 | 60.0 | 140 | 40.0 | 0.001 |
| Education level | ||||||
| Junior high/high-school graduate | 214 | 117 | 54.7 | 97 | 45.3 | |
| Junior college graduate or higher | 486 | 259 | 53.3 | 227 | 46.7 | 0.743 |
| Frequency of green tea intake | ||||||
| Daily | 218 | 135 | 61.9 | 83 | 38.1 | |
| Sometimes | 333 | 185 | 55.6 | 148 | 44.4 | |
| Do not drink | 149 | 56 | 37.6 | 93 | 62.4 | <0.001 |
| Benefit perceptionsa | ||||||
| Low | 152 | 45 | 29.6 | 107 | 70.4 | |
| High | 548 | 331 | 60.4 | 217 | 39.6 | <0.001 |
| Numeracy scoreb | ||||||
| Low | 222 | 147 | 45.7 | 175 | 54.3 | |
| High | 378 | 229 | 60.6 | 149 | 39.4 | <0.001 |
| Selection skill | ||||||
| Low | 348 | 193 | 55.5 | 155 | 44.5 | |
| High | 352 | 183 | 52.0 | 169 | 48.0 | 0.364 |
aLow < 5.00 ≤ high.
bLow < 4.25 ≤ high.
Usefulness of the developed confirmation scheme for identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information (N = 376)a.
| Characteristics | Health literacy level (after explanation) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low | High | ||||
| % | % | ||||
| All | 293 | 77.9 | 83 | 22.1 | |
| Age (years) | |||||
| Under 65 | 246 | 76.6 | 75 | 23.4 | 0.163 |
| 65 or older | 47 | 85.5 | 8 | 14.5 | |
| Sex | |||||
| Male | 129 | 77.7 | 37 | 22.3 | 1 |
| Female | 164 | 78.1 | 46 | 21.9 | |
| Education level | |||||
| Junior high/high-school graduate | 94 | 80.3 | 19.7 | 0.503 | |
| Junior college graduate or higher | 199 | 76.8 | 23.2 | ||
| Frequency of green tea intake | |||||
| Daily | 110 | 81.5 | 25 | 18.5 | 0.457 |
| Sometimes | 140 | 75.7 | 45 | 24.3 | |
| Do not drink | 43 | 76.8 | 13 | 23.2 | |
| Benefit perceptionsb | |||||
| Low | 29 | 64.4 | 16 | 35.6 | 0.033 |
| High | 264 | 79.8 | 16 | 35.6 | |
| Numeracy scorec | |||||
| Low | 113 | 76.9 | 34 | 23.1 | 0.704 |
| High | 180 | 78.6 | 49 | 21.4 | |
| Selection skill | |||||
| Low | 157 | 81.3 | 36 | 18.7 | 0.107 |
| High | 136 | 74.3 | 47 | 25.7 | |
aConsumers with low literacy level at baseline.
bLow < 5.00 ≤ high.
cLow < 4.25 ≤ high.
Factors that hinder the usefulness of the confirmation scheme (N = 376)a.
| Variable | Adjusted OR | (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | |||
| Under 65 | Reference | ||
| 65 or older | 0.607 | (0.273–1.320) | 0.221 |
| Benefit perceptionsb | |||
| Low | Reference | ||
| High | 0.493 | (0.252–0.966) | 0.039 |
| Selection skill | |||
| Low | Reference | ||
| High | 1.440 | (0.877–2.370) | 0.150 |
OR odds ratio, CI confidence interval.
aConsumers with low literacy level at baseline.
bLow < 5.00 ≤ high.
Fig. 1Information absorption process.
Fig. 2Informed decision-making in light of the perceived risks and benefits.