Misinformation about COVID-19 is a major threat to public health. Using five national samples from the UK (n = 1050 and n = 1150), Ireland (n = 700), the USA (n = 700), Spain (n = 700) and Mexico (n = 700), we examine predictors of belief in the most common statements about the virus that contain misinformation. We also investigate the prevalence of belief in COVID-19 misinformation across different countries and the role of belief in such misinformation in predicting relevant health behaviours. We find that while public belief in misinformation about COVID-19 is not particularly common, a substantial proportion views this type of misinformation as highly reliable in each country surveyed. In addition, a small group of participants find common factual information about the virus highly unreliable. We also find that increased susceptibility to misinformation negatively affects people's self-reported compliance with public health guidance about COVID-19, as well as people's willingness to get vaccinated against the virus and to recommend the vaccine to vulnerable friends and family. Across all countries surveyed, we find that higher trust in scientists and having higher numeracy skills were associated with lower susceptibility to coronavirus-related misinformation. Taken together, these results demonstrate a clear link between susceptibility to misinformation and both vaccine hesitancy and a reduced likelihood to comply with health guidance measures, and suggest that interventions which aim to improve critical thinking and trust in science may be a promising avenue for future research.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/pdf/10.1098/rsos.201199

Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world

Despite major advances in vaccination over the past century, resurgence of vaccine-preventable illnesses has led the World Health Organization to identify vaccine hesitancy as a major threat to global health. Vaccine hesitancy may be fueled by health information obtained from a variety of sources, including new media such as the Internet and social media platforms. As access to technology has improved, social media has attained global penetrance. In contrast to traditional media, social media allow individuals to rapidly create and share content globally without editorial oversight. Users may self-select content streams, contributing to ideological isolation. As such, there are considerable public health concerns raised by anti-vaccination messaging on such platforms and the consequent potential for downstream vaccine hesitancy, including the compromise of public confidence in future vaccine development for novel pathogens, such as SARS-CoV-2 for the prevention of COVID-19. In this review, we discuss the current position of social media platforms in propagating vaccine hesitancy and explore next steps in how social media may be used to improve health literacy and foster public trust in vaccination.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/21645515.2020.1780846

Social media and vaccine hesitancy: new updates for the era of COVID-19 and globalized infectious diseases.

Infodemics, often including rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories, have been common during the COVID-19 pandemic. Monitoring social media data has been identified as the best method for tracking rumors in real time and as a possible way to dispel misinformation and reduce stigma. However, the detection, assessment, and response to rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in real time are a challenge. Therefore, we followed and examined COVID-19-related rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories circulating on online platforms, including fact-checking agency websites, Facebook, Twitter, and online newspapers, and their impacts on public health. Information was extracted between December 31, 2019 and April 5, 2020, and descriptively analyzed. We performed a content analysis of the news articles to compare and contrast data collected from other sources. We identified 2,311 reports of rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories in 25 languages from 87 countries. Claims were related to illness, transmission and mortality (24%), control measures (21%), treatment and cure (19%), cause of disease including the origin (15%), violence (1%), and miscellaneous (20%). Of the 2,276 reports for which text ratings were available, 1,856 claims were false (82%). Misinformation fueled by rumors, stigma, and conspiracy theories can have potentially serious implications on the individual and community if prioritized over evidence-based guidelines. Health agencies must track misinformation associated with the COVID-19 in real time, and engage local communities and government stakeholders to debunk misinformation.

/pdf/covid-19-related-infodemic-and-its-impact-on-public-health-a-45h7xksh5l.pdf

COVID-19-Related Infodemic and Its Impact on Public Health: A Global Social Media Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms have long been recognised as major disseminators of health misinformation. Many previous studies have found a negative association between health-protective behaviours and belief in the specific form of misinformation popularly known as 'conspiracy theory'. Concerns have arisen regarding the spread of COVID-19 conspiracy theories on social media. METHODS: Three questionnaire surveys of social media use, conspiracy beliefs and health-protective behaviours with regard to COVID-19 among UK residents were carried out online, one using a self-selecting sample (N = 949) and two using stratified random samples from a recruited panel (N = 2250, N = 2254). RESULTS: All three studies found a negative relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and COVID-19 health-protective behaviours, and a positive relationship between COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and use of social media as a source of information about COVID-19. Studies 2 and 3 also found a negative relationship between COVID-19 health-protective behaviours and use of social media as a source of information, and Study 3 found a positive relationship between health-protective behaviours and use of broadcast media as a source of information. CONCLUSIONS: When used as an information source, unregulated social media may present a health risk that is partly but not wholly reducible to their role as disseminators of health-related conspiracy beliefs.

/pdf/health-protective-behaviour-social-media-usage-and-2gsn6u6gl0.pdf

Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency.

The outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has been accompanied by a large amount of misleading and false information about the virus, especially on social media. In this article, we explore the coronavirus "infodemic" and how behavioral scientists may seek to address this problem. We detail the scope of the problem and discuss the negative influence that COVID-19 misinformation can have on the widespread adoption of health protective behaviors in the population. In response, we explore how insights from the behavioral sciences can be leveraged to manage an effective societal response to curb the spread of misinformation about the virus. In particular, we discuss the theory of psychological inoculation (or prebunking) as an efficient vehicle for conferring large-scale psychological resistance against fake news.

/pdf/inoculating-against-fake-news-about-covid-19-44grwdvo3o.pdf

Inoculating Against Fake News About COVID-19.

Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic is this century’s largest public health emergency and its successful management relies on the effective dissemination of factual information. As a social media platform with billions of daily views, YouTube has tremendous potential to both support and hinder public health efforts. However, the usefulness and accuracy of most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 have not been investigated. Methods A YouTube search was performed on 21 March 2020 using keywords ‘coronavirus’ and ‘COVID-19’, and the top 75 viewed videos from each search were analysed. Videos that were duplicates, non-English, non-audio and non-visual, exceeding 1 hour in duration, live and unrelated to COVID-19 were excluded. Two reviewers coded the source, content and characteristics of included videos. The primary outcome was usability and reliability of videos, analysed using the novel COVID-19 Specific Score (CSS), modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) and modified JAMA (mJAMA) scores. Results Of 150 videos screened, 69 (46%) were included, totalling 257 804 146 views. Nineteen (27.5%) videos contained non-factual information, totalling 62 042 609 views. Government and professional videos contained only factual information and had higher CSS than consumer videos (mean difference (MD) 2.21, 95% CI 0.10 to 4.32, p=0.037); mDISCERN scores than consumer videos (MD 2.46, 95% CI 0.50 to 4.42, p=0.008), internet news videos (MD 2.20, 95% CI 0.19 to 4.21, p=0.027) and entertainment news videos (MD 2.57, 95% CI 0.66 to 4.49, p=0.004); and mJAMA scores than entertainment news videos (MD 1.21, 95% CI 0.07 to 2.36, p=0.033) and consumer videos (MD 1.27, 95% CI 0.10 to 2.44, p=0.028). However, they only accounted for 11% of videos and 10% of views. Conclusion Over one-quarter of the most viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 contained misleading information, reaching millions of viewers worldwide. As the current COVID-19 pandemic worsens, public health agencies must better use YouTube to deliver timely and accurate information and to minimise the spread of misinformation. This may play a significant role in successfully managing the COVID-19 pandemic.

https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/5/5/e002604.full.pdf

YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation?

Introduction Vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 have been accessible to the public since December 2020. However, only 58.3% of Americans are fully vaccinated as of 5 November 2021. Numerous studies have supported YouTube as a source of both reliable and misleading information during the COVID-19 pandemic. Misinformation regarding the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines has negatively impacted vaccination intent. To date, the literature lacks a systematic evaluation of YouTube’s content on COVID-19 vaccination using validated scoring tools. The objective of this study was to evaluate the accuracy, usability and quality of the most widely viewed YouTube videos on COVID-19 vaccination. Methods A search on YouTube was performed on 21 July 2021, using keywords ‘COVID-19 vaccine’ on a cleared-cache web browser. Search results were sorted by ‘views’, and the top 150 most-viewed videos were collected and analysed. Duplicate, non-English, non-audiovisual, exceeding 1-hour duration, or videos unrelated to COVID-19 vaccine were excluded. The primary outcome was usability and reliability of videos, analysed using the modified DISCERN (mDISCERN) score, the modified Journal of the American Medical Association (mJAMA) score and the COVID-19 Vaccine Score (CVS). Results Approximately 11% of YouTube’s most viewed videos on COVID-19 vaccines, accounting for 18 million views, contradicted information from the WHO or the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Videos containing non-factual information had significantly lower mDISCERN (p<0.001), mJAMA (p<0.01) and CVS (p<0.001) scores compared with videos with factual information. Videos from government sources had higher mJAMA and CVS scores, but averaged three times the ratio of dislikes to likes, while videos containing non-factual information averaged 14 times more likes than dislikes. Conclusion As the COVID-19 pandemic evolves, widespread adoption of vaccination is essential in reducing morbidity, mortality, and returning to some semblance of normalcy. Providing high-quality and engaging health information from reputable sources is essential in addressing vaccine hesitancy.

/pdf/youtube-as-a-source-of-misinformation-on-covid-19-1ucz2a5i.pdf

YouTube as a source of misinformation on COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic analysis

Capsule Summary •Adverse reactions to tattoo ingredients are prompting stricter regulations in the European Union, while Canada and the United States are lacking similar oversight. •Dermatologists should be aware of tattoo related adverse reactions and educate patients on tattoo safety, while also petitioning North American policymakers to increase regulation. Despite increasing evidence regarding the carcinogenic properties and cutaneous complications of tattoo inks, there are limited regulations governing the permanent makeup and tattoo industries across North America. On January 4, 2022, in response to this growing evidence, the European Union restricted >4000 substances in tattoo inks and implemented stricter labeling and safety information (Table I). 1 European Parliament and Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/2081 of 14 December 2020 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards substances in tattoo inks or permanent make-up (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R2081&rid=7Date accessed: February 22, 2022 Google Scholar The United States and Canada do not have similar restrictions, despite higher estimated prevalence of adult tattoos (31%) than that reported in the European Union (12%). 1 European Parliament and Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/2081 of 14 December 2020 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards substances in tattoo inks or permanent make-up (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R2081&rid=7Date accessed: February 22, 2022 Google Scholar ,2 Kluger N. An update on cutaneous complications of permanent tattooing. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2019; 15: 1135-1143https://doi.org/10.1080/1744666X.2020.1676732 Crossref PubMed Scopus (19) Google Scholar Table IBrief summary of categories of chemicals limited and labeling requirements under the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals restriction of hazardous substances in tattoo inks and permanent makeup Categories of chemicals limited under the EU-wide classification Labeling requirements Carcinogen and mutagen •Statement “Mixture for use in tattoos or permanent make-up” •Reference number to uniquely identify the batch •List of ingredients •The statement of the presence of any nickel and/or chromium (VI) and their potential to cause allergic reactions if under the specified concentration limit •The presence of any pH regulating substances •Relevant safety instructions Toxic to reproduction Skin sensitizer Skin corrosive, skin irritant, eye irritant, or eye damaging Adapted from European Parliament and Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). 1 European Parliament and Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/2081 of 14 December 2020 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards substances in tattoo inks or permanent make-up (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R2081&rid=7Date accessed: February 22, 2022 Google Scholar EU, European Union. Open table in a new tab Adapted from European Parliament and Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH). 1 European Parliament and Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation, and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH)Commission Regulation (EU) 2020/2081 of 14 December 2020 amending Annex XVII to Regulation (EC) No 1907/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) as regards substances in tattoo inks or permanent make-up (Text with EEA relevance). https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32020R2081&rid=7Date accessed: February 22, 2022 Google Scholar EU, European Union. 

European Tattoo Ingredient Ban - Implications for North America.

Alopecia Areata as a Sequela of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review

Corresponding Author: Mark G. Kirchhof, The Ottawa Hospital, Division of Dermatology, 737 Parkdale Ave, 4th Floor Dermatology, Ottawa, ON K1Y 1J8, Canada. Email: mkirchho@ uottawa. ca Journal of Cutaneous Medicine and Surgery 2022, Vol. 26(6) 630–631 © The Author(s) 2022 Article reuse guidelines: sagepub. com/ journalspermissions DOI: 10. 1177/ 1203 4754 2211 26894 journals. sagepub. com/ home/ cms Cannabis Use in Dermatology: A CrossSectional Study of YouTube Videos

Heidi Oi-Yee Li

Papers

YouTube as a source of information on COVID-19: a pandemic of misinformation?

YouTube as a source of misinformation on COVID-19 vaccination: a systematic analysis

European Tattoo Ingredient Ban - Implications for North America.

Alopecia Areata as a Sequela of COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review

Cannabis Use in Dermatology: A Cross-Sectional Study of YouTube Videos