Background Misinformation represents a serious and growing concern for public health and healthcare health; and has attracted much interest from researchers, media, and the public over recent years. Despite increased concern about the impacts of misinformation on health and wellbeing, however, the concept of health misinformation remains underdeveloped. In particular, there is a need to clarify how certain types of health information come to be designated as “misinformation,” what characteristics are associated with this classification, and how the concept of misinformation is applied in health contexts. Aim Developing a shared understanding of what it means for health information to be “misinformation” is an important first step to accurately identifying at-risk groups, clarifying pathways of vulnerability, and agreeing goals for intervention. It will also help to ensure that misinformation interventions are accessible, acceptable, and of benefit to the populations to which they are directed. We will therefore examine the characteristics, measurement, and applications of misinformation in health contexts. Methods We will undertake a hybrid concept analysis, following a framework from Schwartz-Barcott & Kim (2000). This framework comprises three phases: a theoretical phase, fieldwork phase, and final analysis phase. In the theoretical phase, a search of seven electronic citation databases (PsycInfo, socINDEX, JSTOR, CINAHL, Scopus, MEDLINE and PubMed Central via PubMed, and ScienceDirect) will be conducted in order to identify original research, review, and theoretical papers, published in English between 2016 and 2022, which examine “health misinformation.” Data from the literature will be synthesised using evolutionary concept analysis methods from Rodgers (2000). In the fieldwork phase, a purposive sampling strategy will be employed to recruit stakeholders for participation in semi-structured interviews. Interviews will be analysed using thematic analysis. The final phase will integrate findings from the theoretical and fieldwork analyses.
Read full abstract