A pandemic of COVID-19 mis- and disinformation: manual and automatic topic analysis of the literature

Abstract Objective: Social media's arrival eased the sharing of mis- and disinformation. False information proved challenging throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with many clinicians and researchers analyzing the "infodemic." We systemically reviewed and synthe...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Abdi D. Wakene (Author), Lauren N. Cooper (Author), John J. Hanna (Author), Trish M. Perl (Author), Christoph U. Lehmann (Author), Richard J. Medford (Author)
Format: Book
Published: Cambridge University Press, 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z.
Subjects:
Online Access:Connect to this object online.
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

MARC

LEADER 00000 am a22000003u 4500
001 doaj_eaa9dd98cb7b4a2d95f5e4caa214243c
042 |a dc 
100 1 0 |a Abdi D. Wakene  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Lauren N. Cooper  |e author 
700 1 0 |a John J. Hanna  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Trish M. Perl  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Christoph U. Lehmann  |e author 
700 1 0 |a Richard J. Medford  |e author 
245 0 0 |a A pandemic of COVID-19 mis- and disinformation: manual and automatic topic analysis of the literature 
260 |b Cambridge University Press,   |c 2024-01-01T00:00:00Z. 
500 |a 10.1017/ash.2024.379 
500 |a 2732-494X 
520 |a Abstract Objective: Social media's arrival eased the sharing of mis- and disinformation. False information proved challenging throughout the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic with many clinicians and researchers analyzing the "infodemic." We systemically reviewed and synthesized COVID-19 mis- and disinformation literature, identifying the prevalence and content of false information and exploring mitigation and prevention strategies. Design: We identified and analyzed publications on COVID-19-related mis- and disinformation published from March 1, 2020, to December 31, 2022, in PubMed. We performed a manual topic review of the abstracts along with automated topic modeling to organize and compare the different themes. We also conducted sentiment (ranked −3 to +3) and emotion analysis (rated as predominately happy, sad, angry, surprised, or fearful) of the abstracts. Results: We reviewed 868 peer-reviewed scientific publications of which 639 (74%) had abstracts available for automatic topic modeling and sentiment analysis. More than a third of publications described mitigation and prevention-related issues. The mean sentiment score for the publications was 0.685, and 56% of studies had a negative sentiment (fear and sadness as the most common emotions). Conclusions: Our comprehensive analysis reveals a significant proliferation of dis- and misinformation research during the COVID-19 pandemic. Our study illustrates the pivotal role of social media in amplifying false information. Research into the infodemic was characterized by negative sentiments. Combining manual and automated topic modeling provided a nuanced understanding of the complexities of COVID-19-related misinformation, highlighting themes such as the source and effect of misinformation, and strategies for mitigation and prevention. 
546 |a EN 
690 |a Infectious and parasitic diseases 
690 |a RC109-216 
690 |a Public aspects of medicine 
690 |a RA1-1270 
655 7 |a article  |2 local 
786 0 |n Antimicrobial Stewardship & Healthcare Epidemiology, Vol 4 (2024) 
787 0 |n https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2732494X24003796/type/journal_article 
787 0 |n https://doaj.org/toc/2732-494X 
856 4 1 |u https://doaj.org/article/eaa9dd98cb7b4a2d95f5e4caa214243c  |z Connect to this object online.