An official website of the United States government
Background Team leadership during medical emergencies like cardiac arrest resuscitation is cognitively demanding, especially for trainees. These cognitive processes remain poorly characterized due to measurement challenges. Using virtual reality simulation, this study aimed to elucidate and compare communication and cognitive processes-such as decision-making, cognitive load, perceived pitfalls, and strategies-between expert and novice code team leaders to inform strategies for accelerating proficiency development. Methods A simulation-based mixed methods approach was utilized within a single large academic medical center, involving twelve standardized virtual reality cardiac arrest simulations. These 10- to 15-minutes simulation sessions were performed by seven experts and five novices. Following the simulations, a cognitive task analysis was conducted using a cued-recall protocol to identify the challenges, decision-making processes, and cognitive load experienced across the seven stages of each simulation. Results The analysis revealed 250 unique cognitive processes. In terms of reasoning patterns, experts used inductive reasoning, while novices tended to use deductive reasoning, considering treatments before assessments. Experts also demonstrated earlier consideration of potential reversible causes of cardiac arrest. Regarding team communication, experts reported more critical communications, with no shared subthemes between groups. Experts identified more teamwork pitfalls, and suggested more strategies compared to novices. For cognitive load, experts reported lower median cognitive load (53) compared to novices (80) across all stages, with the exception of the initial presentation phase. Conclusions The identified patterns of expert performance — superior teamwork skills, inductive clinical reasoning, and distributed cognitive strategiesn — can inform training programs aimed at accelerating expertise development.
more »
« less
Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter
Abstract Perceived experts (i.e. medical professionals and biomedical scientists) are trusted sources of medical information who are especially effective at encouraging vaccine uptake. The role of perceived experts acting as potential antivaccine influencers has not been characterized systematically. We describe the prevalence and importance of antivaccine perceived experts by constructing a coengagement network of 7,720 accounts based on a Twitter data set containing over 4.2 million posts from April 2021. The coengagement network primarily broke into two large communities that differed in their stance toward COVID-19 vaccines, and misinformation was predominantly shared by the antivaccine community. Perceived experts had a sizable presence across the coengagement network, including within the antivaccine community where they were 9.8% of individual, English-language users. Perceived experts within the antivaccine community shared low-quality (misinformation) sources at similar rates and academic sources at higher rates compared to perceived nonexperts in that community. Perceived experts occupied important network positions as central antivaccine users and bridges between the antivaccine and provaccine communities. Using propensity score matching, we found that perceived expertise brought an influence boost, as perceived experts were significantly more likely to receive likes and retweets in both the antivaccine and provaccine communities. There was no significant difference in the magnitude of the influence boost for perceived experts between the two communities. Social media platforms, scientific communications, and biomedical organizations may focus on more systemic interventions to reduce the impact of perceived experts in spreading antivaccine misinformation.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 2120496
- PAR ID:
- 10489941
- Publisher / Repository:
- Oxford University Press
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- PNAS Nexus
- Volume:
- 3
- Issue:
- 2
- ISSN:
- 2752-6542
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Though significant efforts such as removing false claims and promoting reliable sources have been increased to combat COVID-19 misinfodemic, it remains an unsolved societal challenge if lacking a proper understanding of susceptible online users, i.e., those who are likely to be attracted by, believe and spread misinformation. This study attempts to answer who constitutes the population vulnerable to the online misinformation in the pandemic, and what are the robust features and short-term behavior signals that distinguish susceptible users from others. Using a 6-month longitudinal user panel on Twitter collected from a geopolitically diverse network-stratified samples in the US, we distinguish different types of users, ranging from social bots to humans with various level of engagement with COVID-related misinformation. We then identify users' online features and situational predictors that correlate with their susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation. This work brings unique contributions: First, contrary to the prior studies on bot influence, our analysis shows that social bots' contribution to misinformation sharing was surprisingly low, and human-like users' misinformation behaviors exhibit heterogeneity and temporal variability. While the sharing of misinformation was highly concentrated, the risk of occasionally sharing misinformation for average users remained alarmingly high. Second, our findings highlight the political sensitivity activeness and responsiveness to emotionally-charged content among susceptible users. Third, we demonstrate a feasible solution to efficiently predict users' transient susceptibility solely based on their short-term news consumption and exposure from their networks. Our work has an implication in designing effective intervention mechanism to mitigate the misinformation dissipation.more » « less
-
Abstract Misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic proliferated widely on social media platforms during the course of the health crisis. Experts have speculated that consuming misinformation online can potentially worsen the mental health of individuals, by causing heightened anxiety, stress, and even suicidal ideation. The present study aims to quantify the causal relationship between sharing misinformation, a strong indicator of consuming misinformation, and experiencing exacerbated anxiety. We conduct a large-scale observational study spanning over 80 million Twitter posts made by 76,985 Twitter users during an 18.5 month period. The results from this study demonstrate that users who shared COVID-19 misinformation experienced approximately two times additional increase in anxiety when compared to similar users who did not share misinformation. Socio-demographic analysis reveals that women, racial minorities, and individuals with lower levels of education in the United States experienced a disproportionately higher increase in anxiety when compared to the other users. These findings shed light on the mental health costs of consuming online misinformation. The work bears practical implications for social media platforms in curbing the adverse psychological impacts of misinformation, while also upholding the ethos of an online public sphere.more » « less
-
This paper examines strategies for making misinformation interventions responsive to four communities of color. Using qualitative focus groups with members of four non-profit organizations, we worked with community leaders to identify misinformation narratives, sources of exposure, and effective intervention strategies in the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI), Black, Latino, and Native American communities. Analyzing the findings from those focus groups, we identified several pathways through which misinformation prevention efforts can be more equitable and effective. Building from our findings, we propose steps practitioners, academics, and policymakers can take to better address the misinformation crisis within communities of color. We illustrate how these recommendations can be put into practice through examples from workshops co-designed with a non-profit working on disinformation and media literacy.more » « less
-
Online misinformation is believed to have contributed to vaccine hesitancy during the Covid-19 pandemic, highlighting concerns about social media’s destabilizing role in public life. Previous research identified a link between political conservatism and sharing misinformation; however, it is not clear how partisanship affects how much misinformation people see online. As a result, we do not know whether partisanship drives exposure to misinformation or people selectively share misinformation despite being exposed to factual content. To address this question, we study Twitter discussions about the Covid-19 pandemic, classifying users along the political and factual spectrum based on the information sources they share. In addition, we quantify exposure through retweet interactions. We uncover partisan asymmetries in the exposure to misinformation: conservatives are more likely to see and share misinformation, and while users’ connections expose them to ideologically congruent content, the interactions between political and factual dimensions create conditions for the highly polarized users—hardline conservatives and liberals—to amplify misinformation. Overall, however, misinformation receives less attention than factual content and political moderates, the bulk of users in our sample, help filter out misinformation. Identifying the extent of polarization and how political ideology exacerbates misinformation can help public health experts and policy makers improve their messaging.more » « less
