Journal Article 14 Mentions
A Public Health Research Agenda for Managing Infodemics: Methods and Results of the First WHO Infodemiology Conference
Neville Calleja•2021
Abdelhalim AbdAllahNeetu Suresh Abad
Top 1% · 99th Percentile
178 citations · Sociology and Political Science
Open Access

TLDR

During crises, too much unreliable information can confuse people and weaken trust in health advice. Effective responses need to measure information problems, understand their effects, and test locally suitable ways to provide reliable guidance.

Summary

1 Study Aim

The authors aimed to create a public health research agenda for managing infodemics, meaning overwhelming flows of mixed-quality information during health emergencies. They sought to identify evidence gaps, useful interventions, and research priorities for the COVID-19 response. Infodemiology, the study of information patterns during health emergencies, provided the scientific foundation. The agenda also aimed to connect researchers, health authorities, communities, and other sectors. The study created a practical research roadmap for improving health information during emergencies.

2 Study Design

The World Health Organization (WHO) held an online conference during June and July 2020, followed by expert review from August to October. The consultation included 110 participants from more than 35 countries and 20 academic or professional fields. Participants completed rotating discussion sprints across four topics. Researchers then used structured expert judgment, a systematic process for combining expert views, through an adapted Delphi consultation, or repeated expert review. The process used the Investigate, Discuss, Estimate, Aggregate (IDEA) protocol. Experts proposed 166 questions, consolidated them into 65, and ranked them for public health impact and feasibility. Reviewers finalized 49 priority questions. Experts combined international discussion, scoring, and review to select the most useful research questions.

3 Findings

The study established five workstreams: measuring impact; detecting spread and risk; developing responses; evaluating interventions and strengthening resilience; and adapting tools across settings. Participants identified 49 priority questions, including 15 top-priority questions and 34 second-tier questions. The research highlights needs for shared measures, better understanding of online and offline behavior, and locally tailored interventions. It also emphasizes trust, health literacy, community participation, ethical safeguards, and collaboration among health authorities, researchers, media, platforms, and civil society. Misinformation, meaning false or misleading information, requires interventions tested for effectiveness, feasibility, cost, and cultural fit. The authors recommend maintaining the agenda as a living document and developing, validating, implementing, and adapting tools for national contexts. Health leaders need practical, tested ways to reduce harmful information and support trustworthy guidance during emergencies.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders. OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics. METHODS: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions. RESULTS: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions. CONCLUSIONS: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.

Referenced In