RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic was a devastating public health event that spurred an influx of misinformation. The increase in questionable health content was aided by the speed and scale of digital and social media and certain news agencies' and politicians' active dissemination of misinformation about the virus. The popularity of certain COVID-19 myths created confusion about effective health protocols and impacted trust in the health care and government sectors deployed to manage the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This study explored how people's information habits, their level of institutional trust, the news media outlets they consume and the technologies in which they access it, and their media literacy skills influenced their COVID-19 knowledge. METHODS: We administered a web-based survey using Amazon Mechanical Turk (MTurk) to assess US adults' (n=1498) COVID-19 knowledge, media and news habits, media literacy skills, and trust in government and health-related institutions. The data were analyzed using a hierarchical linear regression to examine the association between trust, media literacy, news use, and COVID-19 knowledge. RESULTS: The regression model of demographic variables, political affiliation, trust in institutions, media literacy, and the preference for watching Fox or CNN was statistically significant (R2=0.464; F24,1434=51.653; P<.001; adjusted R2=0.455) in predicting COVID-19 knowledge scores. People who identified as politically conservative, watched Fox News, and reported lower levels of institutional trust and media literacy, scored lower on COVID-19 knowledge questions than those who identified as politically liberal, did not watch Fox News and reported higher levels of institutional trust and media literacy. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the media outlets people turn to, their trust in institutions, and their perceived degree of agency to discern credible information can impact people's knowledge of COVID-19, which has potential implications for managing communication in other public health events.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The rampant spread of misinformation about COVID-19 has been linked to a lower uptake of preventive behaviors such as vaccination. Some individuals, however, have been able to resist believing in COVID-19 misinformation. Further, some have acted as information advocates, spreading accurate information and combating misinformation about the pandemic. OBJECTIVE: This work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices. METHODS: To identify participants for this study, we used outcomes of survey research of a national sample of 1498 adults to find individuals who scored a perfect or near-perfect score on COVID-19 knowledge questions and who also self-reported actively sharing or responding to news information within the past week. Among this subsample, we selected a diverse sample of 25 individuals to participate in a 1-time, phone-based, semistructured interview. Interviews were recorded and transcribed, and the team conducted an inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Participants reported trusting in science, data-driven sources, public health, medical experts, and organizations. They had mixed levels of trust in various social media sites to find reliable health information, noting distrust in particular sites such as Facebook (Meta Platforms) and more trust in specific accounts on Twitter (X Corp) and Reddit (Advance Publications). They reported relying on multiple sources of information to find facts instead of depending on their intuition and emotions to inform their perspectives about COVID-19. Participants determined the credibility of information by cross-referencing it, identifying information sources and their potential biases, clarifying information they were unclear about with health care providers, and using fact-checking sites to verify information. Most participants reported ignoring misinformation. Others, however, responded to misinformation by flagging, reporting, and responding to it on social media sites. Some described feeling more comfortable responding to misinformation in person than online. Participants' responses to misinformation posted on the internet depended on various factors, including their relationship to the individual posting the misinformation, their level of outrage in response to it, and how dangerous they perceived it could be if others acted on such information. CONCLUSIONS: This research illustrates how well-informed US adults assess the credibility of COVID-19 information, how they share it, and how they respond to misinformation. It illustrates web-based and offline information practices and describes how the role of interpersonal relationships contributes to their preferences for acting on such information. Implications of our findings could help inform future training in health information literacy, interpersonal information advocacy, and organizational information advocacy. It is critical to continue working to share reliable health information and debunk misinformation, particularly since this information informs health behaviors.