4.6 Article

Twitter and Facebook posts about COVID-19 are less likely to spread misinformation compared to other health topics

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 17, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0261768

关键词

-

资金

  1. [R01GM114771]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

COVID-19 pandemic has led to widespread attention on potential health misinformation. A study found that during the early stages of the pandemic, social media contained proportionally less misinformation than expected based on the previous year. However, health misinformation is not unique to COVID-19 and is a systemic feature of online health communication that can negatively impact public health behaviors.
The COVID-19 pandemic brought widespread attention to an infodemic of potential health misinformation. This claim has not been assessed based on evidence. We evaluated if health misinformation became more common during the pandemic. We gathered about 325 million posts sharing URLs from Twitter and Facebook during the beginning of the pandemic (March 8-May 1, 2020) compared to the same period in 2019. We relied on source credibility as an accepted proxy for misinformation across this database. Human annotators also coded a subsample of 3000 posts with URLs for misinformation. Posts about COVID-19 were 0.37 times as likely to link to not credible sources and 1.13 times more likely to link to more credible sources than prior to the pandemic. Posts linking to not credible sources were 3.67 times more likely to include misinformation compared to posts from more credible sources. Thus, during the earliest stages of the pandemic, when claims of an infodemic emerged, social media contained proportionally less misinformation than expected based on the prior year. Our results suggest that widespread health misinformation is not unique to COVID-19. Rather, it is a systemic feature of online health communication that can adversely impact public health behaviors and must therefore be addressed.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据