Listening to community concerns in the COVID-19 infodemic: A WHO digital approach

Background

The Infodemic (too much information including false or misleading information in digital and physical environments) during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to confusion, risk-taking and behaviors that can amplify outbreaks, and reduce effectiveness of pandemic response efforts. To address this challenge, the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN), in collaboration with research partners, developed a public health Infodemic intelligence analysis methodology for weekly analysis of digital media data to identify, categorize, and understand key concerns expressed in online conversations.

Methods

Thirty-five keyword-based searches (per language) using Meltwater Explore and Google Trends were created and grouped according to a set of pandemic public health taxonomy categories developed specifically for this analysis. The taxonomy has five thematic categories of conversation about COVID-19 and public health response: (1) the cause of the illness, (2) the illness, (3) the treatment, (4) the interventions and (5) Information.

Results

The two most recurring topics to attract increasing interest were Vaccines and Asymptomatic transmission followed by Immunity, Cause of the virus, Vulnerable communities and Reduction of movement, and Risk factors based on demographics and risk of misinformation.

Conclusions

The application of this taxonomy to online social listening week-on-week resulted in a better in-time understanding of the evolution and dynamics of high velocity conversations about COVID-19 globally during the pandemic and proposes a quantifiable approach to support planning of risk communication response.

Key messages

Describe widespread innovation in social listening methods for greater accountability to affected populations. Formulate insights into how digital media can be better utilized for more rapidly responding to the evolving needs of communities.

WHO public health research agenda for managing infodemics

Background

Following the World Health Organization's initial infodemic consultation in April 2020, a major infodemic conference was organised virtually in June-July 2020. Hundreds of experts participated to define science of infodemiology and build a public health research agenda that serves as a playbook for conducting relevant researches. Research Agenda provides guidance to invest in research and innovation so that we have better interventions and tools to understand, measure and respond to infodemics, and steer people towards timely, accessible, understandable information for good health choices.

Methods

The research agenda was developed during a virtual meeting, followed by research question prioritization exercise. It consisted of eight days spread out over four weeks. These were made up of: public preconference meeting; scientific conference, consisting of opening/closing plenary meetings either side of four separate “topic sprint” days; final public meeting to present the meeting outcomes.

After the meeting, a process took place to gather and rank research questions based on the research agenda created during the meeting.

Results

The following five streams and 65 research questions were developed. Measuring and monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies Detecting and understanding the spread and impact of infodemics Responding and deploying interventions that protect against the infodemic and mitigate its harmful effects Evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics Promoting the development, adaptation and application of tools for managing infodemics.

Conclusions

Five streams with 65 research questions were developed and prioritized to structuralise infodemic management based on evidence. The conference yielded on the development of an infodemiology glossary, which can be used by the community of research.

Key messages

Discuss investments in research and innovation to enable a whole-of-society response to infodemics. Explain the practice of infodemic management as a discipline.

Advances in real-time social listening for an adaptive public health response: WHO’s EARS platform

Background

COVID-19 pandemic was accompanied by an Infodemic (overabundance of information, including misinformation and disinformation, both online and offline); in response to this Infodemic, WHO launched the EARS platform (Early AI-assisted Response with Social Listening), showing real-time information about how people are talking about COVID-19 online. This information is intended to serve health information professionals to understand narratives and needs of the general public, in order to inform policy or communications decisions.

Methods

Data is collected daily from online conversations in publicly available sources, including Twitter, online forums, and blogs in English, French, Spanish and Portuguese, for 20 pilot countries. Once the data is collected, it is processed and classified into 39 categories, according to a set of pandemic public health taxonomy. The classification is made based on semi-supervised machine learning.

Results

Top 5 categories across regions are Covid-19 vaccine, Transmission settings, Personal measures, Testing and Industry (industry refers to the impact of the pandemic on the economy). We find that conversations around Covid-19 vaccines usually rank in the second or third position in all regions and represent 9%-12% of the conversation.

Conclusions

The configuration and application of the EARS platform has enabled progress towards more scalable and sustainable social listening to inform Infodemic management and response, compared to previous methods which were more manual, required data scientists in the team, or had fewer analytics capabilities. Future work will focus on gradually adding more data sources which can expand coverage and representativity.

Key messages

Discuss social listening methods for greater accountability to affected populations. Formulate insights into how digital media and information technology can be better utilized for more rapidly responding to the evolving needs of communities.

50 Global Actions to Manage the COVID-19 Infodemic: A WHO Framework

Issue

The World Health Organization describes an infodemic as an “overabundance of information - good or bad - that makes it difficult for people to make decisions for their health.”

Description of the problem

On April 7-8, 2020, the WHO Information Network for Epidemics (EPI-WIN) held a global online to crowdsource ideas from an interdisciplinary group of experts to form a novel COVID-19 infodemic response framework. The online consultation comprised of four plenary sessions and a brainstorming session conducted entirely online. Nearly 1500 individuals from over 100 countries and territories spanning social scientists, epidemiologists, staff from ministries of health and institutes of public health, registered for the consultation.

Results

A set of 50 proposed actions for a framework for managing infodemics in health emergencies was developed that will provide guidance for governments and public health institutions to take in five key areas of action that emerged from the consultation:

strengthening evidence and information

simplifying and explaining what is known fact-checking and addressing misinformation

amplifying messages and reaching the communities and individuals who need the information

quantifying and analysing the infodemic, including information flows, monitoring the acceptance of public health interventions, and assessing factors affecting behaviour at individual and population levels

strengthening systems for infodemic management in health emergencies

Lessons

Everyone has a role to play

Read the Call for Action

Sign the Call for Action

https://www.who.int/news/item/11-12-2020-call-for-action-managing-the-infode

Key messages

The confusion due to Infodemic can lead people to ignore public health measures and take risks that can cause serious harm.

Recognizing this WHO convened an interdisciplinary group of experts 7-8 April 2020 virtually to form a novel COVID-19 infodemic response framework.

Adjunctive Dexamethasone in HIV-Associated Cryptococcal Meningitis

BACKGROUND

Cryptococcal meningitis associated with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection causes more than 600,000 deaths each year worldwide. Treatment has changed little in 20 years, and there are no imminent new anticryptococcal agents. The use of adjuvant glucocorticoids reduces mortality among patients with other forms of meningitis in some populations, but their use is untested in patients with cryptococcal meningitis.

METHODS

In this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we recruited adult patients with HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis in Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Laos, Uganda, and Malawi. All the patients received either dexamethasone or placebo for 6 weeks, along with combination antifungal therapy with amphotericin B and fluconazole.

RESULTS

The trial was stopped for safety reasons after the enrollment of 451 patients. Mortality was 47% in the dexamethasone group and 41% in the placebo group by 10 weeks (hazard ratio in the dexamethasone group, 1.11; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84 to 1.47; P=0.45) and 57% and 49%, respectively, by 6 months (hazard ratio, 1.18; 95% CI, 0.91 to 1.53; P=0.20). The percentage of patients with disability at 10 weeks was higher in the dexamethasone group than in the placebo group, with 13% versus 25% having a prespecified good outcome (odds ratio, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.69; P<0.001). Clinical adverse events were more common in the dexamethasone group than in the placebo group (667 vs. 494 events, P=0.01), with more patients in the dexamethasone group having grade 3 or 4 infection (48 vs. 25 patients, P=0.003), renal events (22 vs. 7, P=0.004), and cardiac events (8 vs. 0, P=0.004). Fungal clearance in cerebrospinal fluid was slower in the dexamethasone group. Results were consistent across Asian and African sites.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone did not reduce mortality among patients with HIV-associated cryptococcal meningitis and was associated with more adverse events and disability than was placebo. (Funded by the United Kingdom Department for International Development and others through the Joint Global Health Trials program; Current Controlled Trials number, ISRCTN59144167.).

CryptoDex: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III trial of adjunctive dexamethasone in HIV-infected adults with cryptococcal meningitis: study protocol for a randomised control trial

BACKGROUND

Cryptococcal meningitis (CM) is a severe AIDS-defining illness with 90-day case mortality as high as 70% in sub-Saharan Africa, despite treatment. It is the leading cause of death in HIV patients in Asia and Africa.No major advance has been made in the treatment of CM since the 1970s. The mainstays of induction therapy are amphotericin B and flucytosine, but these are often poorly available where the disease burden is highest. Adjunctive treatments, such as dexamethasone, have had dramatic effects on mortality in other neurologic infections, but are untested in CM. Given the high death rates in patients receiving current optimal treatment, and the lack of new agents on the horizon, adjuvant treatments, which offer the potential to reduce mortality in CM, should be tested.The principal research question posed by this study is as follows: does adding dexamethasone to standard antifungal therapy for CM reduce mortality? Dexamethasone is a cheap, readily available, and practicable intervention.

METHOD

A double-blind placebo-controlled trial with parallel arms in which patients are randomised to receive either dexamethasone or placebo, in addition to local standard of care. The study recruits patients in both Asia and Africa to ensure the relevance of its results to the populations in which the disease burden is highest. The 10-week mortality risk in the control group is expected to be between 30% and 50%, depending on location, and the target hazard ratio of 0.7 corresponds to absolute risk reductions in mortality from 30% to 22%, or from 50% to 38%. Assuming an overall 10-week mortality of at least 30% in our study population, recruitment of 824 patients will be sufficient to observe the expected number of deaths. Allowing for some loss to follow-up, the total sample size for this study is 880 patients. To generate robust evidence across both continents, we aim to recruit roughly similar numbers of patients from each continent. The primary end point is 10-week mortality. Ethical approval has been obtained from Oxford University's Tropical Research Ethics Committee (OxTREC), and as locally mandated at each site.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number: ISRCTN59144167 26-July-2012.

Specialists' and primary care physicians' participation in medicaid managed care

OBJECTIVE

To compare specialist and primary care physician participation in California's Medicaid fee-for-service and managed care programs.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional survey.

PARTICIPANTS

A probability sample stratified by county and by race of 962 specialist physicians and 713 primary care physicians practicing in the 13 largest counties in California in 1998.

MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS

We used physician self-report from mailed questionnaires to compare acceptance of new Medicaid and new Medicaid managed care patients by specialists versus primary care physicians and by physician demographics, practice setting, attitudes toward Medicaid patients, and attitudes toward Medicaid managed care. We analyzed results using logistic regression with data weighted to represent the total population of primary care and specialist physicians in the 13 counties.

MAIN RESULTS

Specialists were as likely as primary care physicians to have any Medicaid patients in their practices (56% vs 56%; P=.9). Among physicians accepting any new patients, specialists were more likely than primary care physicians to be taking new Medicaid patients but were significantly more likely to limit their acceptance to only Medicaid fee-for-service patients. Thus, specialists were much less likely than primary care physicians to accept new Medicaid managed care patients. After controlling for physician demographics, practice settings, and attitudes toward Medicaid patients and Medicaid managed care, specialists remained much less likely to accept new Medicaid managed care patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Expansion of Medicaid managed care may decrease access to specialists as specialists were less likely to accept new Medicaid managed care patients compared to Medicaid fee-for-service patients. Any decrease in access may be mitigated if states are able to contract with group model HMOs and to recruit minority physicians.

[Vascular effects of nicergoline]

The vascular effects of nicergoline, a post-synaptic alpha receptor antagonist, were studied using a total haemodilution non pulsatile normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass with a bubble oxygenator during cardiac surgery. Anaesthesia was induced with fentanyl 30 micrograms.kg-1 and diazepam 0.25 mg.kg-1 and maintained with incremental doses of fentanyl. All the patients were intubated using pancuronium bromide (0.1 mg.kg-1) and artificially ventilated (FIO2 = 1). Nine patients randomly selected received 10 ml of saline (group 1) and 11 other 5 mg nicergoline (group 2) into the venous line of the extracorporeal circuit. Pump flow remained constant during 10 min. Arteriolar resistance was assessed by mean arterial pressure recording and venous capacitance by the level of venous reservoir. Statistical analysis was carried out using analysis of variance and the Newman-Keuls test. In group 1, arteriolar resistance increased by 17.0 +/- 21.8% at 10 min (not significant), whereas in group 2 it decreased by 22.8 +/- 8.1% at 2 min (p less than 0.05) and then increased slowly. It then remained 18% lower than in group 1 at 10 min. In group 1, venous capacitance decreased regularly by 1 ml.kg-1.min-1 during 10 min (-10.0 +/- 6.2 ml.kg-1 at 10 min), whereas in group 2 it decreased up to the 6th min (-4.2 +/- 3.3 ml.kg-1) and then remained stable, with a 5.4 ml.kg-1 difference with group 1 at 10 min (p less than 0.05). Therefore, nicergoline seemed to cause venoconstriction during cardiopulmonary bypass, possibly through a baroreflex mechanism.