Characterizing and Identifying the Prevalence of Web-Based Misinformation Relating to Medication for Opioid Use Disorder: Machine Learning Approach.

BACKGROUND: Expanding access to and use of medication for opioid use disorder (MOUD) is a key component of overdose prevention. An important barrier to the uptake of MOUD is exposure to inaccurate and potentially harmful health misinformation on social media or web-based forums where individuals commonly seek information. There is a significant need to devise computational techniques to describe the prevalence of web-based health misinformation related to MOUD to facilitate mitigation efforts. OBJECTIVE: By adopting a multidisciplinary, mixed methods strategy, this paper aims to present machine learning and natural language analysis approaches to identify the characteristics and prevalence of web-based misinformation related to MOUD to inform future prevention, treatment, and response efforts. METHODS: The team harnessed public social media posts and comments in the English language from Twitter (6,365,245 posts), YouTube (99,386 posts), Reddit (13,483,419 posts), and Drugs-Forum (5549 posts). Leveraging public health expert annotations on a sample of 2400 of these social media posts that were found to be semantically most similar to a variety of prevailing opioid use disorder-related myths based on representational learning, the team developed a supervised machine learning classifier. This classifier identified whether a post's language promoted one of the leading myths challenging addiction treatment: that the use of agonist therapy for MOUD is simply replacing one drug with another. Platform-level prevalence was calculated thereafter by machine labeling all unannotated posts with the classifier and noting the proportion of myth-indicative posts over all posts. RESULTS: Our results demonstrate promise in identifying social media postings that center on treatment myths about opioid use disorder with an accuracy of 91% and an area under the curve of 0.9, including how these discussions vary across platforms in terms of prevalence and linguistic characteristics, with the lowest prevalence on web-based health communities such as Reddit and Drugs-Forum and the highest on Twitter. Specifically, the prevalence of the stated MOUD myth ranged from 0.4% on web-based health communities to 0.9% on Twitter. CONCLUSIONS: This work provides one of the first large-scale assessments of a key MOUD-related myth across multiple social media platforms and highlights the feasibility and importance of ongoing assessment of health misinformation related to addiction treatment.

Severe Pulmonary Disease Associated with Electronic-Cigarette-Product Use - Interim Guidance.

On September 6, 2019, this report was posted as an MMWR Early Release on the MMWR website (https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr). As of August 27, 2019, 215 possible cases of severe pulmonary disease associated with the use of electronic cigarette (e-cigarette) products (e.g., devices, liquids, refill pods, and cartridges) had been reported to CDC by 25 state health departments. E-cigarettes are devices that produce an aerosol by heating a liquid containing various chemicals, including nicotine, flavorings, and other additives (e.g., propellants, solvents, and oils). Users inhale the aerosol, including any additives, into their lungs. Aerosols produced by e-cigarettes can contain harmful or potentially harmful substances, including heavy metals such as lead, volatile organic compounds, ultrafine particles, cancer-causing chemicals, or other agents such as chemicals used for cleaning the device (1). E-cigarettes also can be used to deliver tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the principal psychoactive component of cannabis, or other drugs; for example, "dabbing" involves superheating substances that contain high concentrations of THC and other plant compounds (e.g., cannabidiol) with the intent of inhaling the aerosol. E-cigarette users could potentially add other substances to the devices. This report summarizes available information and provides interim case definitions and guidance for reporting possible cases of severe pulmonary disease. The guidance in this report reflects data available as of September 6, 2019; guidance will be updated as additional information becomes available.

Airport exit and entry screening for Ebola--August-November 10, 2014.

In response to the largest recognized Ebola virus disease epidemic now occurring in West Africa, the governments of affected countries, CDC, the World Health Organization (WHO), and other international organizations have collaborated to implement strategies to control spread of the virus. One strategy recommended by WHO calls for countries with Ebola transmission to screen all persons exiting the country for "unexplained febrile illness consistent with potential Ebola infection." Exit screening at points of departure is intended to reduce the likelihood of international spread of the virus. To initiate this strategy, CDC, WHO, and other global partners were invited by the ministries of health of Guinea, Liberia, and Sierra Leone to assist them in developing and implementing exit screening procedures. Since the program began in August 2014, an estimated 80,000 travelers, of whom approximately 12,000 were en route to the United States, have departed by air from the three countries with Ebola transmission. Procedures were implemented to deny boarding to ill travelers and persons who reported a high risk for exposure to Ebola; no international air traveler from these countries has been reported as symptomatic with Ebola during travel since these procedures were implemented.

First confirmed cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection in the United States, updated information on the epidemiology of MERS-CoV infection, and guidance for the public, clinicians, and public health authorities - May 2014.

Since mid-March 2014, the frequency with which cases of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) infection have been reported has increased, with the majority of recent cases reported from Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE). In addition, the frequency with which travel-associated MERS cases have been reported and the number of countries that have reported them to the World Health Organization (WHO) have also increased. The first case of MERS in the United States, identified in a traveler recently returned from Saudi Arabia, was reported to CDC by the Indiana State Department of Health on May 1, 2014, and confirmed by CDC on May 2. A second imported case of MERS in the United States, identified in a traveler from Saudi Arabia having no connection with the first case, was reported to CDC by the Florida Department of Health on May 11, 2014. The purpose of this report is to alert clinicians, health officials, and others to increase awareness of the need to consider MERS-CoV infection in persons who have recently traveled from countries in or near the Arabian Peninsula. This report summarizes recent epidemiologic information, provides preliminary descriptions of the cases reported from Indiana and Florida, and updates CDC guidance about patient evaluation, home care and isolation, specimen collection, and travel as of May 13, 2014.

Views and Experiences of Travelers from US States to Zika-Affected Areas.

Travelers to areas with Zika virus transmission are at risk of infection and of transmitting the virus after returning home. While protective behaviors during and after travel can reduce these risks, information about traveler practices or underlying views is limited. We examined these issues using data from the first representative poll of travelers from US states to Zika-affected areas, including US territories and Miami, Florida, conducted December 1 to 23, 2016. We analyzed results among all travelers (n = 1,285) and 2 subgroups at risk for pregnancy-related complications: (1) travelers in households where someone was pregnant or considering pregnancy (n = 72), and (2) other travelers of reproductive age (n = 631). We also examined results among those with different levels of awareness and knowledge about Zika virus. Results show that in households where someone was pregnant or considering pregnancy, awareness of Zika in the destination, concern about infection, and adoption of protective behaviors was relatively high. That said, sizable shares of travelers as a whole did not know information about asymptomatic and sexual transmission or post-travel behaviors. Further, concern about getting infected during travel was low among travelers as a whole, including other travelers of reproductive age. Few travelers consistently adopted protective behaviors during or after travel. Even among travelers who were aware of Zika in their destination and knew how to protect themselves, adoption of protective behaviors was only slightly higher. Findings from this poll suggest communications may be more effective if tailored to different levels of true and perceived risk. To address gaps in knowledge about transmission and post-travel protective behaviors, messaging should include facts and acknowledge the complexities of novel information and social context. Consideration should also be given to emphasizing other benefits of Zika protective behaviors or prioritizing behaviors that are most feasible.

Enabling clinicians to easily find location-based travel health recommendations-is innovation needed?

Background: The types of place names and the level of geographic detail that patients report to clinicians regarding their intended travel itineraries vary. The reported place names may not match those in published travel health recommendations, making traveler-specific recommendations potentially difficult and time-consuming to identify. Most published recommendations are at the country level; however, subnational recommendations exist when documented disease risk varies within a country, as for malaria and yellow fever. Knowing the types of place names reported during consultations would be valuable for developing more efficient ways of searching and identifying recommendations, hence we inventoried these descriptors and identified patterns in their usage. Methods: The data analyzed were previously collected individual travel itineraries from pretravel consultations performed at Global TravEpiNet (GTEN) travel clinic sites. We selected a clinic-stratified random sample of records from 18 GTEN clinics that contained responses to an open-ended question describing itineraries. We extracted and classified place names into nine types and analyzed patterns relative to common travel-related demographic variables. Results: From the 1756 itineraries sampled, 1570 (89%) included one or more place names, totaling 3366 place names. The frequency of different types of place names varied considerably: 2119 (63%) populated place, 336 (10%) tourist destination, 283 (8%) physical geographic area, 206 (6%) vague subnational area, 163 (5%) state, 153 (5%) country, 48 (1%) county, 12 (1%) undefined. Conclusions: The types of place names used by travelers to describe travel itineraries during pretravel consultations were often different from the ones referenced in travel health recommendations. This discrepancy means that clinicians must use additional maps, atlases or online search tools to cross-reference the place names given to the available recommendations. Developing new clinical tools that use geographic information systems technology would make it easier and faster for clinicians to find applicable recommendations for travelers.

Fear and stigma: the epidemic within the SARS outbreak.

Because of their evolving nature and inherent scientific uncertainties, outbreaks of emerging infectious diseases can be associated with considerable fear in the general public or in specific communities, especially when illness and deaths are substantial. Mitigating fear and discrimination directed toward persons infected with, and affected by, infectious disease can be important in controlling transmission. Persons who are feared and stigmatized may delay seeking care and remain in the community undetected. This article outlines efforts to rapidly assess, monitor, and address fears associated with the 2003 severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic in the United States. Although fear, stigmatization, and discrimination were not widespread in the general public, Asian-American communities were particularly affected.