How the General Public Navigates Health Misinformation on Social Media: Qualitative Study of Identification and Response Approaches
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Social media is widely used by the general public as a source of health information because of its convenience. However, the increasing prevalence of health misinformation on social media is becoming a serious concern, and it remains unclear how the general public identifies and responds to it. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to explore the approaches used by the general public for identifying and responding to health misinformation on social media. METHODS: Semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 respondents from the Malaysian general public. The theory of motivated information management was used as a guiding framework for conducting the interviews. Audio-taped interviews were transcribed verbatim and imported into ATLAS.ti software for analysis. Themes were identified from the qualitative data using a thematic analysis method. RESULTS: The 3 main themes identified were emotional responses and impacts of health misinformation, approaches used to identify health misinformation, and responses to health misinformation. The spread of health misinformation through social media platforms has caused uncertainty and triggered a range of emotional responses, including anxiety and feelings of vulnerability, among respondents who encountered it. The approaches to identifying health misinformation on social media included examining message characteristics and sources. Messages were deemed to be misinformation if they contradicted credible sources or exhibited illogical and exaggerated content. Respondents described multiple response approaches to health misinformation based on the situation. Verification was chosen if the information was deemed important, while misinformation was often ignored to avoid conflict. Respondents were compelled to take action if misinformation affected their family members, had been corrected by others, or if they were knowledgeable about the topic. Taking action involved correcting the misinformation and reporting the misinformation to relevant social media, enforcement authorities, and government bodies. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the factors and motivations influencing the general public's identification and response to health misinformation on social media. Addressing the challenges of health misinformation identified in this study requires collaborative efforts from all stakeholders to reduce the spread of health misinformation and reduce the general public's belief in it.
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.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi 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.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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