MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307468504 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-061851

Use of equity-informed social media COVID-19 risk communication tools: a scoping review protocol

2022· review· en· W4307468504 on OpenAlexafffund
Anita Kothari, Nedra Peter, Lorie Donelle

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMisinformation and Its Impacts
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersWestern University
KeywordsMedicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Social mediaProtocol (science)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Equity (law)Risk communicationHealth equityPandemicPublic healthPublic relationsInternet privacyAlternative medicineEnvironmental healthNursingWorld Wide WebVirologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)DiseasePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Health agencies and community organisations play a crucial role in disseminating information to the public about COVID-19 risks and events, providing instructions on how to change behaviour to mitigate those risks, motivating compliance with health directives and addressing false information. Social media platforms are a critical tool in risk communication, providing a medium for rapid transmission of messages as well as providing the opportunity for engagement and immediate feedback. Access to health information, services and support are especially important for marginalised and underserved ('equity-deserving') populations who are disproportionately affected by COVID-19. This scoping review aims to review the breadth and depth of the academic and grey literature on equity-informed social media risk communication tools to provide guidance on promising practices and principles for reaching equity-deserving populations through social media. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Arksey and O'Malley's (2005) framework guided the identification of the research question; identification and selection of relevant studies from electronic databases and hand-searches of discipline-specific journals; extraction and charting of the data; and collating and reporting of findings. The results of the screening process will be reported using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis-Scoping Review guidelines. FINDINGS: We will identify reported facilitators and barriers to the development of risk communications that target equity-deserving communities. We will also identify recommendations for equity-informed risk communication for COVID-19. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethics approval. We intend to disseminate the results through publication in an open-access peer-reviewed journal, conference presentations, lay summaries (eg, checklists) for health organisations and messages to be shared through social media.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.166
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.156
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.877

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1660.156
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.006
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0110.012
Bibliometrics0.0260.018
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.011
Open science0.0060.008
Research integrity0.0100.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0750.018

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.773
GPT teacher head0.658
Teacher spread0.115 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicMisinformation and Its ImpactsFrench-language works237,207