COVID-19 and the Infodemic: An Overview of the Role and Impact of Social Media, the Evolution of Medical Knowledge, and Emerging Problems

Parental Perception of Children's Mental Health During the Pandemic: Insights From an Italian Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

This study explores the impact of the pandemic on children's mental health. It examined the understanding of parents regarding their children's mental condition and their ability to identify issues, 2 years post the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

Using a cross-sectional design, 507 Italian parents reported on their youngest child aged between 2 and 17, totaling 507 children. The outcomes focused on were parental perception of children's mental health deterioration, scores on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) above the clinical cut-off, and parental under-recognition of mental health issues. Descriptive analyses and multivariable logistic regression models were executed (significance at p < .05).

RESULTS

Parents were 88.1% women (median age 41 years, interquartile range [IQR] = 36-47). Their children were 50.3% female [median age 6 years (IQR = 4-11)]. The data revealed 21.1% of parents perceived a deterioration in their children's mental health, while 44.2% had SDQ scores above the cut-off. Parental under-recognition of mental issues was found in 20.1% of cases. Significant correlations were found between parental perception of deterioration, SDQ scores, and factors like parental mental distress and children's sleep issues.

IMPLICATIONS

The findings suggest that schools and verified websites can serve as critical conduits for providing parents with reliable information. By promoting early identification and intervention, such mechanisms can help ensure mental health equity for children.

CONCLUSIONS

The research highlights the effect of the pandemic on children's mental health and the issue of parental under-recognition. The results underscore the importance of public health initiatives that enhance mental health information accessibility and reliability for parents.

Understanding the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies

Risk analysis has existed for thousands of years and will continue to grow in importance across professions and industries. Of special importance is the need to understand and manage risk when there is low knowledge and high uncertainties. Even with pristine and high-quality risk analysis in these situations, integrity and credibility can be questioned, and risk events can happen. Although these issues do not prove some shortcoming in risk analysis and risk management, they can directly impact the risk analyst and decision-makers. The risk literature has addressed the issues of defining and promoting integrity and credibility for risk studies, but there is little existing guidance for the analyst when handling the commonly encountered low knowledge and high uncertainty contexts. In this article, we explore the implications of low knowledge and high uncertainty in risk studies to understand how the risk analyst can acknowledge those features in a risk study, with recognition that those features may be questioned later. The topic of this article will be of interest to risk managers, professionals, and analysts in general who are tasked with analyzing and communicating with studies.

Infodemic: Challenges and solutions in topic discovery and data process

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic was a huge shock to society, and the ensuing information problems had a huge impact on society at the same time. The urgent need to understand the Infodemic, i.e., the importance of the spread of false information related to the epidemic, has been highlighted. However, while there is a growing interest in this phenomenon, studies on the topic discovery, data collection, and data preparation phases of the information analysis process have been lacking.

OBJECTIVE

Since the epidemic is unprecedented and has not ended to this day, we aimed to examine the existing Infodemic-related literature from January 2019 to December 2022.

METHODS

We have systematically searched ScienceDirect and IEEE Xplore databases with some search limitations. From the searched literature we selected titles, abstracts and keywords, and limitations sections. We conducted an extensive structured literature search and analysis by filtering the literature and sorting out the available information.

RESULTS

A total of 47 papers ended up meeting the requirements of this review. Researchers in all of these literatures encountered different challenges, most of which were focused on the data collection step, with few challenges encountered in the data preparation phase and almost none in the topic discovery section. The challenges were mainly divided into the points of how to collect data quickly, how to get the required data samples, how to filter the data, what to do if the data set is too small, how to pick the right classifier and how to deal with topic drift and diversity. In addition, researchers have proposed partial solutions to the challenges, and we have also proposed possible solutions.

CONCLUSIONS

This review found that Infodemic is a rapidly growing research area that attracts the interest of researchers from different disciplines. The number of studies in this field has increased significantly in recent years, with researchers from different countries, including the United States, India, and China. Infodemic topic discovery, data collection, and data preparation are not easy, and each step faces different challenges. While there is some research in this emerging field, there are still many challenges that need to be addressed. These findings highlight the need for more articles to address these issues and fill these gaps.

Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Misinformation poses a serious challenge to clinical and policy decision-making in the health field. The COVID-19 pandemic amplified interest in misinformation and related terms and witnessed a proliferation of definitions.

OBJECTIVE

We aim to assess the definitions of misinformation and related terms used in health-related literature.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews by searching Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and Epistemonikos databases for articles published within the last 5 years up till March 2023. Eligible studies were systematic reviews that stated misinformation or related terms as part of their objectives, conducted a systematic search of at least one database, and reported at least 1 definition for misinformation or related terms. We extracted definitions for the terms misinformation, disinformation, fake news, infodemic, and malinformation. Within each definition, we identified concepts and mapped them across misinformation-related terms.

RESULTS

We included 41 eligible systematic reviews, out of which 32 (78%) reviews addressed the topic of public health emergencies (including the COVID-19 pandemic) and contained 75 definitions for misinformation and related terms. The definitions consisted of 20 for misinformation, 19 for disinformation, 10 for fake news, 24 for infodemic, and 2 for malinformation. "False/inaccurate/incorrect" was mentioned in 15 of 20 definitions of misinformation, 13 of 19 definitions of disinformation, 5 of 10 definitions of fake news, 6 of 24 definitions of infodemic, and 0 of 2 definitions of malinformation. Infodemic had 19 of 24 definitions addressing "information overload" and malinformation had 2 of 2 definitions with "accurate" and 1 definition "used in the wrong context." Out of all the definitions, 56 (75%) were referenced from other sources.

CONCLUSIONS

While the definitions of misinformation and related terms in the health field had inconstancies and variability, they were largely consistent. Inconstancies related to the intentionality in misinformation definitions (7 definitions mention "unintentional," while 5 definitions have "intentional"). They also related to the content of infodemic (9 definitions mention "valid and invalid info," while 6 definitions have "false/inaccurate/incorrect"). The inclusion of concepts such as "intentional" may be difficult to operationalize as it is difficult to ascertain one's intentions. This scoping review has the strength of using a systematic method for retrieving articles but does not cover all definitions in the extant literature outside the field of health. This scoping review of the health literature identified several definitions for misinformation and related terms, which showed variability and included concepts that are difficult to operationalize. Health practitioners need to exert caution before labeling a piece of information as misinformation or any other related term and only do so after ascertaining accurateness and sometimes intentionality. Additional efforts are needed to allow future consensus around clear and operational definitions.

Biased, wrong and counterfeited evidences published during the COVID-19 pandemic, a systematic review of retracted COVID-19 papers

In 2020 COVID-19 led to an unprecedented stream of papers being submitted to journals. Scientists and physicians all around the globe were in need for information about this new disease. In this climate, many articles were accepted after extremely fast peer-reviews to provide the scientific community with the latest discoveries and knowledge. Unfortunately, this also led to articles retraction due to authors' misconduct or errors in methodology and/or conclusions. The aim of this study is to investigate the number and characteristics of retracted papers, and to explore the main causes that led to retraction. We conducted a systematic review on retracted articles, using PubMed as data source. Our inclusion criteria were the following: English-language retracted articles that reported original data, results, opinions or hypotheses on COVID-19 and Sars-CoV-2. Twenty-seven retracted articles were identified, mainly reporting observational studies and opinion pieces. Many articles published during the first year of the pandemic have been retracted, mainly due to the authors' scientific misconduct. Duplications, plagiarism, frauds and absence of consent, were the main reasons for retractions. In modern medicine, researchers are required to publish frequently, and, especially during situations like the COVID-19 pandemic, when articles were rapidly published, gaps in peer-reviews system and in the path to scientific publication arose.

Parents' perspective on COVID-19 vaccine in children 6 months through 4 years: a cross-sectional study from Northwest Wisconsin

Vaccination is critical to control the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, but despite the availability of safe and effective vaccine in children over 5 years, vaccination rates remain low. There is paucity of data about vaccine acceptance and factors influencing parents' hesitancy about the COVID-19 vaccine for young children.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

To estimate vaccine acceptance by parents of children 6 months through 4 years, and to evaluate the factors influencing vaccine hesitancy.

METHODS

Electronic survey was sent to parents of children 6 months through 4 years through an online portal account at Mayo Clinic Health System, Northwest-Wisconsin. Data were captured via Research Electronic Data Capture secured data collection software. Bivariate and multivariate regression was used to determine most pertinent factors influencing parents' decisions against the outcome, 'Intent to Vaccinate'.

RESULTS

39.7% of the parents were 'very likely' or 'somewhat likely' to vaccinate their children once the vaccine became available, while 49.8% were not likely or highly unlikely to vaccinate. Routine childhood vaccination, receiving seasonal influenza vaccine, parents' perception of COVID-19 severity in children and safety and effectiveness of the vaccine were all associated with more vaccine acceptance. 71.4% of parents who will likely not vaccinate their children indicated that they are unlikely to change their decision. The need for more research on the vaccine and more information from the PCP office were the most common reasons behind the vaccine decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

Vaccine hesitancy remains a major issue regarding uptake of the upcoming COVID-19 vaccine. Strong and clear evidence-based recommendations from primary care provider and more information from trusted websites such as Centers for Disease Control and Prevention can decrease vaccine hesitancy in parents. Further research targeted at understanding beliefs and perspectives of parents from different demographics can assist policy-makers in implementing measures to improve vaccination rates in children and tailor our dialogue to match the needs of our patients and families.

COVID-19 Vaccination Intent, Barriers and Facilitators in Healthcare Workers: Insights from a Cross-Sectional Study on 2500 Employees at LMU University Hospital in Munich, Germany

Considering the role of healthcare workers (HCW) in promoting vaccine uptake and previously recorded hesitancy among HCW, we aim to examine the COVID-19 vaccination intent and status of HCW through a cross-sectional anonymous online survey at LMU University Hospital in Munich. Data collection was informed by the Health Belief Model (HBM) and focused on vaccination intent, status and on potential factors affecting the decision-making process. In total, 2555 employees completed the questionnaire. Our data showed that an approving attitude towards recommended vaccines and having received an influenza vaccine in the previous winter were strongly associated with COVID-19 vaccination intent. Further, a positive COVID-19 vaccination status was associated with a higher likelihood of approving the extension of the validity of non-pharmaceutical interventions at the workplace. Our HBM-analysis demonstrated strong associations between the perceived benefits and barriers and COVID-19 vaccination intent. Unchanged or low perceived susceptibility and severity were associated with refusal or indecisiveness. Our findings highlight the factors associated with the decision regarding a COVID-19 vaccine and indicate a pattern-like behavior in the acceptance of novel vaccines by HCW. These insights can help inform the communication aims of vaccination campaigns among HCW within similar organizational contexts or in future outbreaks.