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
This content was automatically synthesized by Credo's AI models directly from the original source text.
AI summaries can make mistakes — double-check important details against the original source.
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.