Interventions to Mitigate Vaping Misinformation: A Meta-Analysis.

The impact of misinformation about vapes' relative harms compared with smoking may lead to increased tobacco-related burden of disease and youth vaping. Unfortunately, vaping misinformation has proliferated. Despite growing attempts to mitigate vaping misinformation, there is still considerable ambiguity regarding the ability to effectively curb the negative impact of misinformation. To address this gap, we use a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative impact of interventions designed to mitigate vaping-related misinformation. We searched (from January 2020 till August 2021) various databases and gray literature. Only English language, original studies that employed experimental designs where participants were randomly assigned either to receive mitigating information or to a no-mitigation condition (either misinformation-only or neutral control) were included. Meta-analysis was conducted for the four eligible studies. The mean effect size of attempts to mitigate vaping misinformation was positive but not statistically significant (d = 0.383, 95% CI [-0.029, 0.796], p = .061, k = 5) with lack of evidence for publication bias. Given limited studies included, we were unable to determine factors affecting the efficacy of interventions. The limited focus on non-US studies and youth populations is concerning given the popularity of vaping in low- to middle-income countries (LMICs) and among youth. The findings of this meta-analysis describe the current state of the literature and prescribe specific recommendations to better address the proliferation of vaping misinformation, providing insights helpful in limiting the tobacco mortality burden and curtailing youth vaping.

Interventions to Mitigate COVID-19 Misinformation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

The duration and impact of the COVID-19 pandemic depends largely on individual and societal actions which are influenced by the quality and salience of the information to which they are exposed. Unfortunately, COVID-19 misinformation has proliferated. Despite growing attempts to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation, there is still uncertainty regarding the best way to ameliorate the impact of COVID-19 misinformation. To address this gap, the current study uses a meta-analysis to evaluate the relative impact of interventions designed to mitigate COVID-19-related misinformation. We searched multiple databases and gray literature from January 2020 to September 2021. The primary outcome was COVID-19 misinformation belief. We examined study quality and meta-analysis was used to pool data with similar interventions and outcomes. 16 studies were analyzed in the meta-analysis, including data from 33378 individuals. The mean effect size of interventions to mitigate COVID-19 misinformation was positive, but not statistically significant [d = 2.018, 95% CI (-0.14, 4.18), p = .065, k = 16]. We found evidence of publication bias. Interventions were more effective in cases where participants were involved with the topic, and where text-only mitigation was used. The limited focus on non-U.S. studies and marginalized populations is concerning given the greater COVID-19 mortality burden on vulnerable communities globally. The findings of this meta-analysis describe the current state of the literature and prescribe specific recommendations to better address the proliferation of COVID-19 misinformation, providing insights helpful to mitigating pandemic outcomes.