MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4399028093 · doi:10.2196/49366

Effects of COVID-19 Illness and Vaccination Infodemic Through Mobile Health, Social Media, and Electronic Media on the Attitudes of Caregivers and Health Care Providers in Pakistan: Qualitative Exploratory Study

2024· article· en· W4399028093 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Abdul Momin Kazi, Nazia Ahsan, Rawshan Jabeen, Raheel Allana, Saima Jamal, Muhammad Ayub Khan Mughal, Kathryn L. Hopkins, Fauzia Malik

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Infodemiology · 2024
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineSocial Sciences
ThématiqueMisinformation and Its Impacts
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesSabin Vaccine Institute
Mots-clésSocial mediaQualitative researchExploratory researchCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careHealth communicationHealth equityMedicinePsychologyNursingPublic relationsSociologyPolitical sciencePublic healthDisease

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on different countries because of which various health and safety measures were implemented, with digital media playing a pivotal role. However, digital media also pose significant concerns such as misinformation and lack of direction. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19-related infodemics through digital, social, and electronic media on the vaccine-related attitudes of caregivers and health care providers in Pakistan. METHODS: This study employs a qualitative exploratory study design with purposive sampling strategies, and it was conducted at 3 primary health care facilities in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. Seven focus group discussions with health care providers and 60 in-depth interviews with caregivers were conducted using semistructured interviews through virtual platforms (ConnectOnCall and Zoom). Transcripts were analyzed through thematic analysis. RESULTS: Our study reveals the pivotal role of electronic media, mobile health (mHealth), and social media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four major themes were identified: (1) sources of information on COVID-19 and its vaccination, (2) electronic media value and misleading communication, (3) mHealth leveraging and limitations during COVID-19, and (4) social media influence and barriers during COVID-19. Health care providers and caregivers reported that the common sources of information were electronic media and mHealth, followed by social media. Some participants also used global media for more reliable information related to COVID-19. mHealth solutions such as public awareness messages, videos, call ringtones, and helplines promoted COVID-19 prevention techniques and vaccine registration. However, the overwhelming influx of news and sociobehavioral narratives, including misinformation/disinformation through social media such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, were found to be the primary enablers of vaccine-related infodemics. Electronic media and mHealth were utilized more widely to promote information and communication on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination. However, social media and electronic media-driven infodemics were identified as the major factors for misinformation related to COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy. Further, we found a digital divide between the urban and rural populations, with the use of electronic media in rural settings and social media in urban settings. CONCLUSIONS: In a resource-constrained setting like Pakistan, the usage of mHealth, social media, and electronic media for information spread (both factual and mis/disinformation) related to COVID-19 and its vaccination had a significant impact on attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Based on the qualitative findings, we generated a model of digital communications and information dissemination to increase knowledge about COVID-19 and its prevention measures, including vaccination, which can be replicated in similar settings for other disease burdens and related infodemics. Further, to mitigate the infodemics, both digital and nondigital interventions are needed at a larger scale.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,003
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Qualitatif · Signal consensuel: Qualitatif
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,045
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,994

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0030,001
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0000,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,059
Tête enseignante GPT0,472
Écart entre enseignants0,413 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeQualitatif
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations4
Publié2024
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR InfodemiologyMême sujetMisinformation and Its ImpactsTravaux en français237 207