了解随机对照试验在减少 COVID-19 误报方面的特点和有效性:系统综述。

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH Health Education Research Pub Date : 2024-11-01 DOI:10.1093/her/cyae036
Arman Miri, Akram Karimi-Shahanjarini, Maryam Afshari, Saeed Bashirian, Leili Tapak
{"title":"了解随机对照试验在减少 COVID-19 误报方面的特点和有效性:系统综述。","authors":"Arman Miri, Akram Karimi-Shahanjarini, Maryam Afshari, Saeed Bashirian, Leili Tapak","doi":"10.1093/her/cyae036","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to assess the features and effectiveness of individual-level randomized controlled trials targeting COVID-19 misinformation. The selection process included rigorous criteria, resulting in the inclusion of 24 individual studies from 21 papers. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries, with the accuracy/credibility of information as the primary outcome. Debunking and boosting interventions were the most common interventions while nudging and content labeling interventions were examined in a few studies. This study highlights that further research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of boosting strategies and to explore the impact of combined interventions. Addressing bias concerns and standardizing intervention assessment measures will contribute to the development of evidence-based approaches in this critical area.</p>","PeriodicalId":48236,"journal":{"name":"Health Education Research","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Understanding the features and effectiveness of randomized controlled trials in reducing COVID-19 misinformation: a systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Arman Miri, Akram Karimi-Shahanjarini, Maryam Afshari, Saeed Bashirian, Leili Tapak\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/her/cyae036\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This systematic review aimed to assess the features and effectiveness of individual-level randomized controlled trials targeting COVID-19 misinformation. The selection process included rigorous criteria, resulting in the inclusion of 24 individual studies from 21 papers. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries, with the accuracy/credibility of information as the primary outcome. Debunking and boosting interventions were the most common interventions while nudging and content labeling interventions were examined in a few studies. This study highlights that further research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of boosting strategies and to explore the impact of combined interventions. Addressing bias concerns and standardizing intervention assessment measures will contribute to the development of evidence-based approaches in this critical area.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48236,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Education Research\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Education Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyae036\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Education Research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/her/cyae036","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本系统性综述旨在评估针对 COVID-19 错误信息的个体水平随机对照试验的特点和有效性。筛选过程包括严格的标准,最终纳入了 21 篇论文中的 24 项个别研究。大多数研究都是在高收入国家进行的,以信息的准确性/可信度为主要结果。揭穿式干预和促进式干预是最常见的干预方式,而引导式干预和内容标注式干预则在少数研究中进行了探讨。本研究强调,需要进一步开展研究,以提高促进策略的有效性,并探索综合干预措施的影响。解决偏差问题和规范干预评估措施将有助于在这一关键领域开发循证方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Understanding the features and effectiveness of randomized controlled trials in reducing COVID-19 misinformation: a systematic review.

This systematic review aimed to assess the features and effectiveness of individual-level randomized controlled trials targeting COVID-19 misinformation. The selection process included rigorous criteria, resulting in the inclusion of 24 individual studies from 21 papers. The majority of studies were conducted in high-income countries, with the accuracy/credibility of information as the primary outcome. Debunking and boosting interventions were the most common interventions while nudging and content labeling interventions were examined in a few studies. This study highlights that further research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of boosting strategies and to explore the impact of combined interventions. Addressing bias concerns and standardizing intervention assessment measures will contribute to the development of evidence-based approaches in this critical area.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
期刊介绍: Publishing original, refereed papers, Health Education Research deals with all the vital issues involved in health education and promotion worldwide - providing a valuable link between the health education research and practice communities.
期刊最新文献
The effect of face-to-face and online education provided to individuals with atrial fibrillation on medication adherence and satisfaction. The effect of health education on symptom severity in patients with fibromyalgia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Understanding the features and effectiveness of randomized controlled trials in reducing COVID-19 misinformation: a systematic review. Self-efficacy in patients with inflammatory bowel disease: the effect of self-care education by two randomized methods-teach-back and a smartphone application. Correction to: Singlestick purchases: a comparative cross-country analysis in 10 African countries, Global Adult Tobacco Survey, 2012-21.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1