An official website of the United States government
Symptoms-tracking applications allow crowdsensing of health and location related data from individuals to track the spread and outbreaks of infectious diseases. During the COVID-19 pandemic, for the first time in history, these apps were widely adopted across the world to combat the pandemic. However, due to the sensitive nature of the data collected by these apps, serious privacy concerns were raised and apps were critiqued for their insufficient privacy safeguards. The Covid Nearby project was launched to develop a privacy-focused symptoms-tracking app and to understand the privacy preferences of users in health emergencies. In this work, we draw on the insights from the Covid Nearby users' data, and present an analysis of the significantly varying trends in users' privacy preferences with respect to demographics, attitude towards information sharing, and health concerns, e.g. after being possibly exposed to COVID-19. These results and insights can inform health informatics researchers and policy designers in developing more socially acceptable health apps in the future.
more »
« less
Understanding the Relationship Between Official and Social Information About Infectious Disease: Experimental Analysis
Background Communicating official public health information about infectious diseases is complicated by the fact that individuals receive much of their information from their social contacts, either via interpersonal interaction or social media, which can be prone to bias and misconception. Objective This study aims to evaluate the effect of public health campaigns and the effect of socially communicated health information on learning about diseases simultaneously. Although extant literature addresses the effect of one source of information (official or social) or the other, it has not addressed the simultaneous interaction of official information (OI) and social information (SI) in an experimental setting. Methods We used a series of experiments that exposed participants to both OI and structured SI about the symptoms and spread of hepatitis C over a series of 10 rounds of computer-based interactions. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a high, low, or control intensity of OI and to receive accurate or inaccurate SI about the disease. Results A total of 195 participants consented to participate in the study. Of these respondents, 186 had complete responses across all ten experimental rounds, which corresponds to a 4.6% (9/195) nonresponse rate. The OI high intensity treatment increases learning over the control condition for all symptom and contagion questions when individuals have lower levels of baseline knowledge (all P values ≤.04). The accurate SI condition increased learning across experimental rounds over the inaccurate condition (all P values ≤.01). We find limited evidence of an interaction between official and SI about infectious diseases. Conclusions This project demonstrates that exposure to official public health information increases individuals’ knowledge of the spread and symptoms of a disease. Socially shared information also facilitates the learning of accurate and inaccurate information, though to a lesser extent than exposure to OI. Although the effect of OI persists, preliminary results suggest that it can be degraded by persistent contradictory SI over time.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1740761
- PAR ID:
- 10397671
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Medical Internet Research
- Volume:
- 23
- Issue:
- 11
- ISSN:
- 1438-8871
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e25287
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Background People’s health-related knowledge influences health outcomes, as this knowledge may influence whether individuals follow advice from their doctors or public health agencies. Yet, little attention has been paid to where people obtain health information and how these information sources relate to the quality of knowledge. Objective We aim to discover what information sources people use to learn about health conditions, how these sources relate to the quality of their health knowledge, and how both the number of information sources and health knowledge change over time. Methods We surveyed 200 different individuals at 12 time points from March through September 2020. At each time point, we elicited participants’ knowledge about causes, risk factors, and preventative interventions for 8 viral (Ebola, common cold, COVID-19, Zika) and nonviral (food allergies, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis [ALS], strep throat, stroke) illnesses. Participants were further asked how they learned about each illness and to rate how much they trust various sources of health information. Results We found that participants used different information sources to obtain health information about common illnesses (food allergies, strep throat, stroke) compared to emerging illnesses (Ebola, common cold, COVID-19, Zika). Participants relied mainly on news media, government agencies, and social media for information about emerging illnesses, while learning about common illnesses from family, friends, and medical professionals. Participants relied on social media for information about COVID-19, with their knowledge accuracy of COVID-19 declining over the course of the pandemic. The number of information sources participants used was positively correlated with health knowledge quality, though there was no relationship with the specific source types consulted. Conclusions Building on prior work on health information seeking and factors affecting health knowledge, we now find that people systematically consult different types of information sources by illness type and that the number of information sources people use affects the quality of individuals’ health knowledge. Interventions to disseminate health information may need to be targeted to where individuals are likely to seek out information, and these information sources differ systematically by illness type.more » « less
-
Abstract In a high‐risk environment, such as during an epidemic, people are exposed to a large amount of information, both accurate and inaccurate. Following exposure, they typically discuss the information with each other. Here, we assess the effects of such conversations on beliefs. A sample of 126 M‐Turk participants rated the accuracy of a set of COVID‐19 statements, including accurate information, inaccurate information, and conspiracy theories (pre‐test). They were then paired and asked to discuss these statements (low epistemic condition) or to discuss only the statements they thought were accurate (high epistemic condition). Finally, they rated the accuracy of the initial statements again (post‐test). We do not find an effect of the epistemic condition on belief change. However, we find that individuals are sensitive to their conversational partners and change their beliefs according to their partners' conveyed beliefs. In exploratory analyses, we report predictors of believing COVID‐19 conspiracies.more » « less
-
Retracted papers often circulate widely on social media, digital news, and other websites before their official retraction. The spread of potentially inaccurate or misleading results from retracted papers can harm the scientific community and the public. Here, we quantify the amount and type of attention 3,851 retracted papers received over time in different online platforms. Comparing with a set of nonretracted control papers from the same journals with similar publication year, number of coauthors, and author impact, we show that retracted papers receive more attention after publication not only on social media but also, on heavily curated platforms, such as news outlets and knowledge repositories, amplifying the negative impact on the public. At the same time, we find that posts on Twitter tend to express more criticism about retracted than about control papers, suggesting that criticism-expressing tweets could contain factual information about problematic papers. Most importantly, around the time they are retracted, papers generate discussions that are primarily about the retraction incident rather than about research findings, showing that by this point, papers have exhausted attention to their results and highlighting the limited effect of retractions. Our findings reveal the extent to which retracted papers are discussed on different online platforms and identify at scale audience criticism toward them. In this context, we show that retraction is not an effective tool to reduce online attention to problematic papers.more » « less
-
Abstract Background We investigate the relationships among political preferences, risk for COVID-19 complications, and complying with preventative behaviors, such as social distancing, quarantine, and vaccination, as they remain incompletely understood. Since those with underlying health conditions have the highest mortality risk, prevention strategies targeting them and their caretakers effectively can save lives. Understanding caretakers’ adherence is also crucial as their behavior affects the probability of transmission and quality of care, but is understudied. Examining the degree to which adherence to prevention measures within these populations is affected by their health status vs. voting preference, a key predictor of preventative behavior in the U. S, is imperative to improve targeted public health messaging. Knowledge of these associations could inform targeted COVID-19 campaigns to improve adherence for those at risk for severe consequences. Methods We conducted a nationally-representative online survey of U.S. adults between May–June 2020 assessing: 1) attempts to socially-distance; 2) willingness/ability to self-quarantine; and 3) intention of COVID-19 vaccination. We estimated the relationships between 1) political preferences 2) underlying health status, and 3) being a caretaker to someone with high-risk conditions and each dependent variable. Sensitivity analyses examined the associations between political preference and dependent variables among participants with high-risk conditions and/or obesity. Results Among 908 participants, 75.2% engaged in social-distancing, 94.4% were willing/able to self-quarantine, and 60.1% intended to get vaccinated. Compared to participants intending to vote for Biden, participants who intended to vote for Trump were significantly less likely to have tried to socially-distance, self-quarantine, or intend to be vaccinated. We observed the same trends in analyses restricted to participants with underlying health conditions and their caretakers Underlying health status was independently associated with social distancing among individuals with obesity and another high-risk condition, but not other outcomes. Conclusion Engagement in preventative behavior is associated with political voting preference and not individual risk of severe COVID-19 or being a caretaker of a high-risk individual. Community based strategies and public health messaging should be tailored to individuals based on political preferences especially for those with obesity and other high-risk conditions. Efforts must be accompanied by broader public policy.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.2196/25287
