Social Media and the Influence of Fake News on Global Health Interventions: Implications for a Study on Dengue in Brazil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Social media usage is growing globally, with an exponential increase in low- and middle-income countries. Social media changes the ways in which information-sharing occurs, intensifying the population's exposure to misinformation, including fake news. This has important repercussions for global health. The spread of fake news can undermine the implementation of evidence-based interventions and weaken the credibility of scientific expertise. This is particularly worrisome in countries, such as Brazil, in a sociopolitical context characterized by a lack of popular trust in public institutions. In this project report, we describe our experience with the spread of fake news through the social media platform WhatsApp during the implementation of a cluster randomized controlled trial aimed at reducing dengue incidence in children in Fortaleza (Brazil). During initial visits to selected clusters, the research team was met with resistance. Then, soon after data collection started, fake news began circulating about the study. As a result, the research team developed strategies to dispel suspicion and further promote the study. However, the climate of violence and mistrust, coupled with the COVID-19 pandemic, forced the interruption of the study in 2019. The lessons learned from our experience in Fortaleza can be useful to other researchers and practitioners implementing large-scale interventions in this era of health-related misinformation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.083 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".