COVID-19 Misinformation Research Articles

IHeard STL: Development and first year findings from a local surveillance and rapid response system for addressing COVID-19 and other health misinformation.

The U.S. Surgeon General and others have emphasized a critical need to address COVID-19 misinformation to protect public health. In St. Louis, MO, we created iHeard STL, a community-level misinformation surveillance and response system. This paper reports methods and findings from its first year of operation. We assembled a panel of over 200 community members who answered brief, weekly mobile phone surveys to share information they heard in the last seven days. Based on their responses, we prioritized misinformation threats. Weekly surveillance data, misinformation priorities, and accurate responses to each misinformation threat were shared on a public dashboard and sent to community organizations in weekly alerts. We used logistic regression to estimate odds ratios (ORs) for associations between panel member characteristics and misinformation exposure and belief. In the first year, 214 panel members were enrolled. Weekly survey response rates were high (mean = 88.3% ± 6%). Exposure to a sample of COVID-19 misinformation items did not differ significantly by panel member age category or gender; however, African American panel members had significantly higher reported odds of exposure and belief/uncertain belief in some misinformation items (ORs from 3.4 to 17.1) compared to white panel members. Our first-year experience suggests that this systematic, community-based approach to assessing and addressing misinformation is feasible, sustainable, and a promising strategy for responding to the threat of health misinformation. In addition, further studies are needed to understand whether structural factors such as medical mistrust underly the observed racial differences in exposure and belief.

Examining the Dynamics of COVID-19 Misinformation: Social Media Trends, Vaccine Discourse, and Public Sentiment.

COVID-19, known as coronavirus disease, has prompted a global reevaluation of societal norms. The World Health Organization (WHO) declared it a worldwide Public Health Emergency on January 30, 2020. Subsequently, governments and pharmaceutical firms developed vaccines, such as mRNA options from Pfizer and Moderna, alongside viral vector alternatives to combat the escalating COVID-19 case tally. Extensive inquiry was directed toward assessing vaccine efficiency. Nonetheless, vaccine discourse has surged across social media, prominently involving the anti-vaxxer community. This faction's hesitancy, rooted in reservations about efficacy, potential side effects, and conspiracy notions, contributes to an ongoing dialogue. This investigation delves into social media's role in proliferating COVID-19 misinformation, utilizing tools like Python, Excel, and external resources to craft data visuals that elucidate trends influencing misinformation dissemination and its hypothetical ties to elevated COVID-19 cases. Scrutiny of Twitter trends illuminates the prevalence of the hashtag #covidvaccine, although the platform curbs anti-vaccine hashtags. Analysis of sentiment across 207,006 tweets reveals a prevailing positive sentiment toward COVID-19 vaccines, coexisting with lingering skepticism. Google trends reflect increased anti-vaccine ideology queries, notably post-FDA vaccine approval in December 2020, indicating public doubt. While limitations encompass data granularity, geographic origins of false tweets, bot account quantification on Twitter, and comprehensive digital resources, this study pioneers reference for forthcoming investigations. Its objective is to mitigate the diffusion of misinformation.

An Analysis of the Impact of Social Media and Search Engines on Decision-Making

With the constant advancement of technology and the advent of a global pandemic, as of 2023 it is safe to say our lives are as affected by our physical surroundings as they are by the virtual spaces we inhabit.
 Social media and search engines constitute a big part of how people use technology to aid in their decision-making processes. The current state of social media and search engines regulation in the United States is one of stall: while public discourse continues and concerns among experts keep raising at each iteration of existing platforms or introduction of new tools, policymakers have not made as much progress in regulating the actions of the companies owning these platforms, in spite of their awareness of the impact these tools have on the public’s decision-making abilities. In this context, the spread of dis- and mis- information is a particularly dangerous phenomenon that can only be tackled with a radical change in the way platform owners are held accountable for the content they allow the circulation of.
 This study aims to serve as a much needed reminder of the effects of social media and search engines usage on the public’s agency, decision-making processes, and ultimately the real-life consequences of the exposure to and interaction with online misinformation and disinformation.
 A specific focus on how Covid-19 disinformation (false information which is deliberately intended to mislead) and misinformation (false or inaccurate information) spreading on two specific platforms (Reddit, and Google) was handled by said platforms will serve as a magnifying glass on the aforementioned issues. Analyzing the prominent design and ethics concerns in this landscape, I intend to propose heuristics to inform policy-oriented solutions to a set of issues that has been largely misunderstood and underestimated at the policy level in the United States. I argue that these concerns will only increase in complexity if left untackled, and the introduction of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools to the public might have already exponentially complicated the position of the United States’ governmental entities; while explicitly clarifying their intention to insure people’s well-being, governmental bodies are struggling with either understanding the policy/regulatory options available to them or getting them passed. The influence of the lobbying power of tech companies and governments' conflicts of interests in the matter will be discussed.

How social media users become misinformed: The roles of news-finds-me perception and misinformation exposure in COVID-19 misperception

This study explores the role of the news-finds-me (NFM) perception—the belief that people can be well-informed without actively seeking news due to their social networks—in fostering social media users’ inaccurate beliefs about COVID-19. Findings from a US national survey ( N = 1003) suggest that NFM perception is positively associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and mediates the positive relationship between social media use and false beliefs when NFM is measured as a single-dimensional construct. However, the sub-dimensions of NFM have distinct implications: The reliance on peers and not seeking but feeling informed dimensions work in the same manner as when NFM is treated as a single-dimensional construct, whereas reliance on algorithmic news negatively predicts belief in misinformation and negatively mediates the aforementioned relationship. We also found the mediating role of exposure to misinformation in the relationship between social media use and false beliefs. Implications from these findings are discussed.

Sharing Reliable COVID-19 Information and Countering Misinformation: In-Depth Interviews With Information Advocates.

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. This work explores highly knowledgeable information advocates' perspectives, behaviors, and information-related practices. 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. 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. 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.

The pandemic experiences of Ontario perinatal providers: a qualitative study

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has produced widespread disruptions for healthcare systems across Canada. Perinatal care in Ontario, Canada was subject to province-wide public health restrictions, reallocation of hospital beds and human health resources. To better understand the impacts of the pandemic on Ontario perinatal care, this study explored the perspectives of perinatal care providers about their clinical COVID-19 pandemic experiences.MethodsSemi-structured key informant virtual interviews were conducted between August 2021 and January 2022 with 15 Ontario-based perinatal care providers. Recorded interviews were transcribed, and thematic content analysis used to identify major themes and subthemes.ResultsParticipants were mainly women, practicing in Eastern and Central Ontario as health providers (obstetricians, nurses, midwives), allied regulated health professionals (social worker, massage therapist), and perinatal support workers (doula, lactation consultant). Major themes and subthemes were identified inductively as follows: (1) Impacts of COVID-19 on providers (psychosocial stress, healthcare system barriers, healthcare system opportunities); (2) Perceived impacts of COVID-19 on pregnant people (psychosocial stress, amplification of existing healthcare barriers, influences on reproductive decision making; minor theme- social and emotional support roles); (3) Vaccine discourse (provider empathy, vaccines and patient family dynamics, minor themes- patient vaccine hesitancy, COVID-19 misinformation); and (4) Virtual pregnancy care (benefits, disadvantages, adaptation of standard care practices).ConclusionsPerinatal care providers reported significant stress and uncertainty caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and evolving hospital protocols. Providers perceived that their patients were distressed by both the pandemic and related reductions in pregnancy healthcare services including hospital limits to support companion(s). Although virtual pregnancy care impaired patient-provider rapport, most providers believed that the workflow efficiencies and patient convenience of virtual care is beneficial to perinatal healthcare.

Interactive mapping of Covid-19 disinformation in Ibero-America

Fake news, created with different intentions and disseminated through various social networks and messaging platforms, has become a significant means of disinformation in the current landscape. In the face of certain events or controversial situations, the number of fake new items increases, a situation that can become worrying. One such event was the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic. To combat this phenomenon, various fact-checking bodies appeared with the objective of demonstrating and disseminating whether a certain piece of information was correct. At the international level, these organizations have joined together in the #CoronaVirusFacts/#DatosCoronaVirus Alliance. The organization Chequeado from Argentina has collected information coming from Latin American (Latam) countries plus Spain and Portugal in a specific database, which allows for their analysis on an independent basis. The objective of this work is to analyze and make graphically visible the thematic distribution, media typology, and digital formats of the fake news that circulated regarding the coronavirus pandemic in Ibero-America by means of the social network analysis technique (SNA) and others, using the information from the aforementioned database. Its final visualization is shown by means of interactive mapping, which can be manipulated by the user to analyze the results through the application of different integrated filtering strategies.

The role of perceived minority-group status in the conspiracy beliefs of factual majority groups.

Research suggests that minority-group members sometimes are more susceptible to misinformation. Two complementary studies examined the influence of perceived minority status on susceptibility to misinformation and conspiracy beliefs. In study 1 (n = 2140), the perception of belonging to a minority group, rather than factually belonging to it, was most consistently related with an increased susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation across national samples from the USA, the UK, Germany and Poland. Specifically, perceiving that one belongs to a gender minority group particularly predicted susceptibility to misinformation when participants factually did not belong to it. In pre-registered study 2 (n = 1823), an experiment aiming to manipulate the minority perceptions of men failed to influence conspiracy beliefs in the predicted direction. However, pre-registered correlational analyses showed that men who view themselves as a gender minority were more prone to gender conspiracy beliefs and exhibited a heightened conspiracy mentality. This effect was correlationally mediated by increased feelings of system identity threat, collective narcissism, group relative deprivation and actively open-minded thinking. Especially, the perception of being a minority in terms of power and influence (as compared to numerically) was linked to these outcomes. We discuss limitations and practical implications for countering misinformation.

Hold Your Fingers: The Communication Ethics on WhatsApp Based on the Hadith

In recent years, the widespread dissemination of false information on social media, especially WhatsApp, has become a major concern. This calls for a comprehensive analysis, emphasizing the Hadith perspective, in the context of Covid-19 misinformation in Indonesia. This article qualitatively analyses the spread of false information through WhatsApp, from the Hadith perspective. This study collected and analyzed WhatsApp messages circulating in Indonesia from 2020 to 29 May 2022, using the Turnbackhoax website to identify false information related to COVID-19. There were 217 messages classified into various categories, such as understanding COVID-19, symptoms, government policies, services, spread, treatment, positive patient data, task force, deaths, economic, social, and religious impacts, vaccines, and masks. The findings show that WhatsApp is a social media platform that is widely used to spread false information. The findings were then analyzed using Hadith, which revealed WhatsApp communication ethics such as silence is better than communicating false information, selectively sharing information, and conducting investigations. This research is expected to contribute to understanding the method in clear standardization, namely the Hadith of the Prophet. Anyone can use this method to prevent the spread of false information through various mass communication media, not only WhatsApp. Keywords: COVID-19, misinformation, communication ethics, hadith, WhatsApp.

The words that make fake stories go viral: A corpus-based approach to analyzing Russian Covid-19 disinformation

Since the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, the spread of the new virus has been accompanied by the growing infodemic that became a dangerous prospect for Internet users. Social media and online messengers have been instrumental in making fake stories about Covid-19 viral. The lack of an efficient instrument for classifying digital texts as true or fake is still a big challenge. Deceptive content and its specific characteristics attract attention of many linguists, making it one of the most popular contemporary topics in corpus-based research. This paper explores the language of viral Covid-related fake stories and identifies specific linguistic features that distinguish fake stories from real (authentic) news using quantitative and qualitative approaches to text analysis. The study was conducted on the material of the self-compiled diachronic corpus containing Russian misleading coronavirus-related social media posts (a target corpus of 897 texts) which were virally shared by Russian users through social media platforms and mobile messengers from March 2020 to March 2022 and the reference corpus containing genuine materials about the virus. First, we compared two corpora using an interpretable set of features across language levels to find whether there is evidence of significant variation in the language of fake and real news. Then, we focused on frequency profiling to extract other over-represented groups of words from both corpora. Finally, we analyzed the corresponding contexts to indicate whether these features can be considered as linguistic trends in Russian Covid-related fake story making. Findings regarding the role of these over-represented groups of words in fake narratives about coronavirus revealed efficiency of frequency profiling in indicating lexical patterns of the language of deception.

Novel Psychosocial Correlates of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy: Cross-Sectional Survey.

Effective COVID-19 vaccines have been available since early 2021 yet many Americans refuse or delayed uptake. As of mid-2022, still around 30% of US adults remain unvaccinated against COVID-19. The majority (81%) of these unvaccinated adults say they will "definitely not" be getting the COVID-19 vaccine. Understanding the determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake is critical to reducing death and illness from the virus, as well as to inform future vaccine efforts, such as the more recent bivalent (omicron) booster. This study aimed to expand our understanding of psychosocial determinants of COVID-19 vaccine uptake. We focus on both COVID-19-specific factors, such as COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs, as well as more global personality attributes such as dogmatism, reactance, gender roles, political beliefs, and religiosity. We conducted a web-based survey in mid-2021 of a representative sample of 1376 adults measuring both COVID-19-specific beliefs and attitudes, as well as global personality attributes. COVID-19 vaccination status is reported at 3 levels: vaccinated; unvaccinated-may-get-it; unvaccinated-hard-no. Our analyses focused on the correlation of COVID-19 vaccination status with 10 psychosocial attributes: COVID-19-specific conspiracy theory beliefs; COVID-19 vaccine misinformation; COVID-19-related Rapture beliefs; general antivaccination beliefs; trait reactance; trait dogmatism; belief in 2020 election fraud; belief in a QAnon conspiracy; health care system distrust; and identification with traditional gender roles. We used a multivariate analysis of covariance to examine mean differences across vaccine status groups for each of the correlates while holding constant the effects of age, gender, race, income, education, political party, and Evangelicalism. Across the 10 psychosocial correlates, several different response scales were used. To allow for comparison of effects across correlates, measures of effect size were computed by converting correlates to z scores and then examining adjusted mean differences in z scores between the groups. We found that all 10 psychosocial variables were significantly associated with vaccination status. After general antivaccination beliefs, COVID-19 misinformation beliefs and COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs had the largest effect on vaccine uptake. The association of these psychosocial factors with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy may help explain why vaccine uptake has not shifted much among the unvaccinated-hard-no group since vaccines became available. These findings deepen our understanding of those who remain resistant to getting vaccinated and can guide more effective tailored communications to reach them. Health communication professionals may apply lessons learned from countering related beliefs and personality attributes around issues such as climate change and other forms of vaccine hesitancy. For example, using motivational interviewing strategies that are equipped to handle resistance and provide correct information in a delicate manner that avoids reactance.

Exploring predictors of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among students, faculty, and staff at a Southeastern University in the United States

Objective Explore predictors of early COVID-19 vaccine adoption on a university campus. Participants Students, faculty, staff, and administration (N = 1,234) completed an online survey exploring COVID-19 vaccine-related experiences, perspectives, and knowledge, from September to October 2021. Methods Based on vaccination status participants were identified as vaccine hesitant or early vaccine adopters. Binary logistic regression was used to examine association between independent variables and vaccine adoption status. Results Democrats (OR = 4.3, p = <.001), participants without a positive COVID-19 test (OR = 2.5, p = <.001), noted seeing/hearing COVID-19 misinformation (OR = 1.8, p = 0.27), and reported trust in public health agencies (OR = 26.2, p = <.001) were more likely to be early COVID-19 vaccine adopters, compared to Republicans, those with a positive COVID-19 test, those who had not seen/heard COVID-19 misinformation, and those reporting distrust in public health agencies, respectively. Conclusion Findings indicate that COVID-19 vaccine adoption is multifactorial. Future research should focus on vaccination status-related trust and health communication.

Diffusion of COVID-19 misinformation: Mechanisms for threat- and efficacy-related misinformation diffusion

Health-related misinformation diffused online is largely comprised of threat- and efficacy-related information but potential differences in the way they are diffused have not been examined extensively. This research examined if and how threat-related COVID-19 misinformation is diffused more actively than the ones concerning the efficacy of protective actions. Further, it explored the mechanisms underlying the diffusion of threat- and efficacy-related misinformation by testing the mediating capacities of the three key drivers of information diffusion– novelty, emotional arousal, and message credibility. Results of multilevel analyses of online survey data (N = 1,012) employing a national quota sample in South Korea showed that threat-related misinformation was diffused more than efficacy-related misinformation. Furthermore, multilevel path models specifying the three key drivers as mediators indicated that the effects of threat-related misinformation on social sharing were explained by greater perceptions of novelty and emotional arousal. Message credibility, however, mediated the effects on sharing intention for those who have not been exposed to a given misinformation but not actual sharing behavior upon exposure, suggesting that the latter may be influenced more by arousal-based responses (e.g., emotional arousal) than sound reasoning (e.g., message credibility). Implications on interventions aiming at curbing health misinformation diffusion are discussed.

Examining the association between social media fatigue, cognitive ability, narcissism and misinformation sharing: cross-national evidence from eight countries

Several studies have explored the causes and consequences of public engagement with misinformation and, more recently, COVID-19 misinformation. However, there is still a need to understand the mechanisms that cause misinformation propagation on social media. In addition, evidence from non-Western societies remains rare. This study reports on survey evidence from eight countries to examine whether social media fatigue can influence users to believe misinformation, influencing their sharing intentions. Our insights also build on prior cognitive and personality literature by exploring how this mechanism is conditional upon users’ cognitive ability and narcissism traits. The results suggest that social media fatigue can influence false beliefs of misinformation which translates into sharing on social media. We also find that those with high levels of cognitive ability are less likely to believe and share misinformation. However, those with low cognitive ability and high levels of narcissism are most likely to share misinformation on social media due to social media fatigue. This study is one of the first to provide cross-national comparative evidence highlighting the adverse effects of social media fatigue on misinformation propagation and establishing that the relationship is not universal but dependent on both cognitive and dark personality traits of individuals.

Gender as a moderating variable in online misinformation acceptance during COVID-19

Misinformation remained a critical consideration during the COVID-19 that further cultivated fears leading to strong unrest among the public globally. This study clarifies certain misconceptions related to the pandemic by investigating whether factors such as altruism, entertainment, information-sharing, information-seeking, comprehensibility have impact on COVID-19 misinformation acceptance and sharing it in the UAE culture, with gender as a moderating factor. An online survey (google.com) was used, with a sample of 200 university students, and analyzed using PLS-SEM software to determine the effects of constructed factors. The findings indicated that entertainment, information-sharing, and information-seeking factors have impact on sharing COVID-19 misinformation, while comprehensibility has impact on acceptance of misinformation. Interestingly, gender was found to have no impact on all the constructed factors, suggesting that other moderating factors (e.g., age) need to be considered in future research. Generally, online users need to learn how to verify online information that they receive/share on other social media, especially regarding health concern.

COVID-19 Misinformation impact on the level of Anxiety and Depression among University Students

COVID-19 Misinformation impact on the level of Anxiety and Depression among University Students

Digital Pseudo-Identification in the Post-Truth Era: Exploring Logical Fallacies in the Mainstream Media Coverage of the COVID-19 Vaccines

Because of China’s new wave of COVID-19 in May 2023, the issue of tackling COVID-19 misinformation remains relevant. Based on Lippmann’s theory of public opinion and agenda setting theory, this article aims to examine the concept of digital pseudo-identification as a type of logical fallacy that refers to supporting journalists’ opinions with ‘false’ arguments that lack factual evidence. To do so, the study applied computer-aided content analysis, as well as rhetorical and critical discourse analyses, to examine 400 articles related to four COVID-19 vaccines (‘Oxford-AstraZeneca’, ‘Pfizer-BioNTech’, ‘Sputnik V’ and ‘Sinovac’) published on the online versions of two major British and American mainstream media sources between August 2020 and December 2021. The results of the study show that journalists of the ‘The New York Times’ and ‘The Guardian’ used similar logical fallacies, including the opinions of pseudo-authorities and references to pseudo-statistics and stereotypes, which contributed to creating distorted representations of the COVID-19 vaccines and propagating online misinformation. The study also reveals political bias in both of the mainstream media sources, with relatively more positive coverage of the European vaccines than non-European vaccines. The findings have important implications for journalism and open up perspectives for further research on the concept of digital pseudo-identification in the humanities and social sciences.

Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media by Physicians in the US

Approximately one-third of the more than 1 100 000 confirmed COVID-19-related deaths as of January 18, 2023, were considered preventable if public health recommendations had been followed. Physicians' propagation of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other internet-based platforms has raised professional, public health, and ethical concerns. To characterize (1) the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians after vaccines became available, (2) the online platforms used, and (3) the characteristics of the physicians spreading misinformation. Using US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection during the study window to define misinformation, structured searches of high-use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Parler, and YouTube) and news sources (The New York Times, National Public Radio) were conducted to identify COVID-19 misinformation communicated by US-based physicians between January 2021 and December 2022. Physicians' state of licensure and medical specialty were identified. The number of followers for each physician on 4 major platforms was extracted to estimate reach and qualitative content analysis of the messages was performed. Outcome measures included categories of COVID-19 misinformation propagated, the number and traits of physicians engaged in misinformation propagation, and the type of online media channels used to propagate misinformation and potential reach. The propagation of COVID-19 misinformation was attributed to 52 physicians in 28 different specialties across all regions of the country. General misinformation categories included vaccines, medication, masks, and other (ie, conspiracy theories). Forty-two physicians (80.8%) posted vaccine misinformation, 40 (76.9%) propagated information in more than 1 category, and 20 (38.5%) posted misinformation on 5 or more platforms. Major themes identified included (1) disputing vaccine safety and effectiveness, (2) promoting medical treatments lacking scientific evidence and/or US Food and Drug Administration approval, (3) disputing mask-wearing effectiveness, and (4) other (unsubstantiated claims, eg, virus origin, government lies, and other conspiracy theories). In this mixed-methods study of US physician propagation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media, results suggest widespread, inaccurate, and potentially harmful assertions made by physicians across the country who represented a range of subspecialties. Further research is needed to assess the extent of the potential harms associated with physician propagation of misinformation, the motivations for these behaviors, and potential legal and professional recourse to improve accountability for misinformation propagation.

Assessing Brigada Digital de Salud Audience Reach and Engagement: A Digital Community Health Worker Model to Address COVID-19 Misinformation in Spanish on Social Media.

U.S. Spanish-speaking populations experienced gaps in timely COVID-19 information during the pandemic and disproportionate misinformation exposure. Brigada Digital de Salud was established to address these gaps with culturally tailored, Spanish-language COVID-19 information on social media. From 1 May 2021 to 30 April 2023, 495 Twitter, 275 Facebook, and 254 Instagram posts were published and amplified by 10 trained community health workers. A qualitative content analysis was performed to characterize the topics and formats of 251 posts. To assess reach and engagement, page analytics and advertising metrics for 287 posts were examined. Posts predominantly addressed vaccination (49.45%), infection risks (19.12%), and COVID-related scientific concepts (12.84%). Posts were educational (48.14%) and aimed to engage audiences (23.67%), promote resources (12.76%), and debunk misinformation (9.04%). Formats included images/text (55.40%), carousels (27.50%), and videos (17.10%). By 9 June 2023, 394 Facebook, 419 Instagram, and 228 Twitter followers included mainly women ages 24-54. Brigada Digital reached 386,910 people with 552,037 impressions and 96,868 engagements, including 11,292 likes, 15,240 comments/replies, 9718 shares/retweets, and 45,381 video play-throughs. The most engaging posts included videos with audio narration, healthcare providers, influencers, or music artists. This community-based model to engage Spanish-speaking audiences on social media with culturally aligned content to counter misinformation shows promise for addressing public health threats.

Development of a Naturalness Preference Scale.

Naturalness preference can influence important health decisions. However, the literature lacks a reliable way to measure individual differences in naturalness preferences. We fill this gap by designing and validating a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference. We conducted 3 studies among Amazon Mechanical Turk participants. In study 1 (N = 451), we created scale items through an iterative process that measured naturalness preference in hypothesized domains. We conducted exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to identify items that assess the naturalness preference construct. In study 2 (N = 448), we conducted confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and tests of criterion, discriminant, convergent, and incremental validity. In study 3 (N = 607), we confirmed test-retest reliability of the scale and performed additional validity tests. EFA revealed 3 correlated factors consistent with naturalness preference in medicine, food, and household products. The CFA confirmed the 3-factor structure and led to the decision to drop reverse-coded items. The finalized Naturalness Preference Scale (NPS) consists of 20 items and 3 subscales: NPS-medicine, NPS-food, and NPS-household products. The NPS demonstrated good test-retest reliability, and subscales had good validity in their respective domains. The NPS-medicine subscale was predictive of the uptake of a hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine (r = -0.45) and belief in unproven natural COVID remedies and treatments (r = 0.29). The NPS will allow researchers to better assess individual differences in naturalness preference and how they influence decision making and health behaviors. This research created and validated a scale to measure individual differences in naturalness preference in 3 domains: medicine, food, and household products.This study confirms that the strength of the naturalness preference differs in different domains.An important and timely finding is that higher scores in the naturalness preference medical subscale are associated with belief in COVID-19 misinformation and reluctance toward COVID-19 vaccination.