COVID-19 and Public Health: Analysis of Opinions in Social Media

Расходчиков, Алексей Николаевич; Pilgún, María

doi:10.3390/ijerph20020971

Cited by 2 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(58 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It used a neural network and linguistic analysis methods to assess users’ perception of government actions and identified points of tension in matters of communication during emergencies. It aims at improving the interaction between the government and society and to timely adjust government plans and actions to ensure resilience in emergencies for public health purposes ( 38 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review

Abuhaloob,

Purnat,

Tabche

et al. 2024

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionThe World Health Organization (WHO) defined an infodemic as an overabundance of information, accurate or not, in the digital and physical space, accompanying an acute health event such as an outbreak or epidemic. It can impact people’s risk perceptions, trust, and confidence in the health system, and health workers. As an immediate response, the WHO developed the infodemic management (IM) frameworks, research agenda, intervention frameworks, competencies, and processes for reference by health authorities.ObjectiveThis systematic review explored the response to and during acute health events by health authorities and other organizations operating in health. It also assessed the effectiveness of the current interventions.MethodsOn 26 June 2023, an online database search included Medline (Ovid), Embase, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Epistemonikos, and the WHO website. It included English-only, peer-reviewed studies or reports covering IM processes applied by health organizations that reported their effectiveness. There was no restriction on publication dates. Two independent reviewers conducted all screening, inclusion, and quality assessments, and a third reviewer arbitrated any disagreement between the two reviewers.ResultsReviewers identified 945 records. After a final assessment, 29 studies were included in the review and were published between 2021 and 2023. Some countries (Pakistan, Yemen, Spain, Italy, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, United Kingdom, United States, New Zealand, Finland, South Korea, and Russia) applied different methods of IM to people’s behaviors. These included but were not limited to launching media and TV conservations, using web and scientific database searches, posting science-based COVID-19 information, implementing online surveys, and creating an innovative ecosystem of digital tools, and an Early AI-supported response with Social Listening (EARS) platform. Most of the interventions were effective in containing the harmful effects of COVID-19 infodemic. However, the quality of the evidence was not robust.DiscussionMost of the infodemic interventions applied during COVID-19 fall within the recommended actions of the WHO IM ecosystem. As a result, the study suggests that more research is needed into the challenges facing health systems in different operational environments and country contexts in relation to designing, implementing, and evaluating IM interventions, strategies, policies, and systems.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review

Abuhaloob,

Purnat,

Tabche

et al. 2024

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most of the existing literature that considers SM, masking, and COVID-19 is classified as quantitative big data analysis that covers one-month time periods with samples ranging from 100,000 to over a million tweets [ 34 , 36 , 38 , 40 ]. Very little research exists that is qualitative in nature.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

COVID-19 and Masking Disparities: Qualitative Analysis of Trust on the CDC’s Facebook Page

Laurent-Simpson

2023

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This exploratory paper examines individual levels of risk assessment as impacting institutional trust in the CDC while also contributing to disparities in expressed willingness to mask early in the COVID-19 pandemic. Using both content and thematic analysis of the CDC’s Facebook (FB) page from April 2020 and Gidden’s modern risk society theory, I consider how social media (SM) users retrospectively perceived a dramatic change in public health (PH) advisory—from the CDC advising against masking in February 2020 (Time 1) to advising the use of “do-it-yourself” (DIY) cloth masking in April 2020 (Time 2)—through a lens of prior, self-guided research. Expressed “knowledge” of masking as preventative (or not) yielded unwavering and sometimes increasing distrust in the CDC based on user perception of the “correct” advisory, regardless of the CDC’s position at Time 1 or Time 2. Simultaneously, disparities in masking behaviors appeared to be driven not by CDC guidance but by this same self-guided research. I show this via three themes: (1) claims of ineffectiveness for DIY masking (do not trust CDC now—no masking from the start); (2) conflict between the first and second CDC advisories on masking (do not trust CDC—either already masking anyway or will now); (3) disappointed in the CDC for length of time taken to make a DIY mask recommendation (do not trust CDC—either already masking anyway or will mask now). I discuss the imperative nature of two-way engagement with SM users by PH rather than using SM as a one-way mode of advisory dissemination. This and other recommendations may decrease disparities in preventative behaviors based on individual-level risk assessment as well as increase institutional trust and transparency.

show abstract

COVID-19 and Public Health: Analysis of Opinions in Social Media

Cited by 2 publications

References 57 publications

Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review

Management of infodemics in outbreaks or health crises: a systematic review

COVID-19 and Masking Disparities: Qualitative Analysis of Trust on the CDC’s Facebook Page

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About