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...
Saved in:
Main Authors: | , , , , , |
---|---|
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. |