How level of understanding and type of used sources relate to adherence to COVID-19 public health measures in Canada

Previous studies have highlighted the importance of promoting health literacy and minimizing misinformation to encourage higher adherence to key public health measures during the COVID-19 pandemic. This study explores how one's self-reported understanding of information and types of sources used to get information regarding COVID-19 can hinder adherence to public health measures implemented by the Canadian government. Data was collected following a longitudinal design of 11 time points for April 2020 to April 2021. The sub-sample used for this study included 2659 Canadians who completed the survey for at least four time points. Using Latent Class Growth Analysis, we modelled typical trajectories of adherence to three key public health measures: staying home, social distancing and mask wearing. Overall, a lower level of understanding was associated with lower adherence trajectories to public health measures, and vice-versa. Adjusted odds ratio (AOR) showed that the higher the level of understanding, the higher were the chances of following a high adherence trajectory. The type of used sources also showed a significant statistical association with adherence trajectories for social distancing and staying home (AOR: between 1.1 and 3.4). These results are discussed considering future policy implications.

Infodemic in Public health a reemerging public health threat: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Infodemic is a neologism of 'information' and 'epidemic' coined in the year 2003. Evidence mapping is a technique to appraise the literature which enables the extent of research activity in a specific area to be discovered. The main objective of this evidence synthesis presents the outcomes of an evidence map that was directed to know the extent of Infodemics and its effects on public health.  Methods: The following methods were used to construct this evidence synthesis: Phase I. Construct a Broad Question Referring to the Field of Analysis. Phase II; Defining Key Variables to Be Mapped, identifying the characters of each variable and Outline Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria for the variables. Phase III: Literature search. Phase IV: Screening and Charting the Appropriate Evidence within the Synthesis.  Results:  Authors identified 55 records through database searching, after screening for duplicates, 53 records screened at title/abstract level of which, 16 records were removed because of lack of complete article or articles were not in English. 37 articles were eligible for full text screening, 37 full-text articles were than assessed for eligibility and only 22 articles were included as per inclusion criteria with an interrater Outcome Kappa value: 0.91. The strength of agreement was considered to be 'excellent'.  Conclusions: This synthesis focused majorly on the gaps in the research focused on infodemic. The two main gaps identified were lack of systematically conducted research and poor digital health literacy. As infodemic is a new phenomenon with respect to the COVID-19 pandemic it was an eye opener at different levels of public health, furthermore this evidence map points out areas for further research on the impact of infodemic.