Optimising myth correction during a global pandemic

COVID-19 was accompanied by an unprecedented amount of misinformation. This information’s ability to spread was aided by several social and political phenomenon (e.g., science denialism). Humans are not good at making truth judgements and their judgements can be led astray by phenomenon such as the illusory truth effect whereby repetition makes things appear more truthful. Misinformation is problematic for Public Health as it can foster unhelpful behaviours (e.g., not following social distancing guidance). It has also been demonstrated to continue to influence decisions following correction (i.e., debunking). Recommendations for debunking have evolved over the years, for example the shift from the recommendation that misinformation should always be excluded from corrections to the acknowledgement that it can be shown in some contexts. However, the contexts in which misinformation can be shown is unclear and many recommendations have not been tested within the context of public health. In this thesis, I aimed to test debunking recommendations within a Public Health context to examine how we can optimise the way in which public health campaigns decrease myth agreement (and increase behaviour intentions). I tested four types of correction formats throughout this thesis: myth-fact, fact-only, fact-myth, and question-answer. Previous research has experimentally tested three of these correction formats (Swire-Thompson et al., 2021). The comparison of the question-answer format to other corrections was novel. I found that the myth-fact and fact-myth were effective at lowering myth agreement. The fact-only format was also effective at lowering agreement, but it was not as effective when participants had high baseline vaccine concerns, or their baseline myth agreement was high. The question-answer format was also more effective than fact-only, and I found some evidence that question-answer was more effective than fact-myth in the longer term. These findings have implications for debunking recommendations and public health campaigns countering misinformation

Causal claims about correlations reduced in press releases following academic study of health news

Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover such exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Here we assess whether press release practice changed after these reported findings; simply drawing attention to the issue may be insufficient for practical change, given the challenges of media environments. Methods: We assessed whether rates of causal over-statement in press releases based on correlational data were lower following a seminal paper on the topic, compared to an equivalent baseline period in the preceding year. Results: We found that over-statements in press releases reduced from 28% (95% confidence interval = 16% to 45%) in 2014 to 13% (95% confidence interval = 6% to 25%) in 2015. A corresponding numerical reduction in exaggerations in news was not significant. The association between over-statements in news and press releases remained strong. Conclusions: Press release over-statements were less frequent following publication of Sumner et al. (2014), indicating that press release practice is malleable. However, this is correlational evidence and the reduction may be due to other factors

Co-creating a knowledge base in the “22q11.2 deletion syndrome” community

22q11.2 DS is characterised by its variability, rarity and variety of features ranging from congenital heart conditions to psychiatric and behavioural issues. As a result, health information–seeking behaviour is different from other more common conditions. An exploratory study was carried out to understand how parents access information and support, and how that information is shared. Qualitative interviews were carried out with families and support group representatives, and thematic analysis was applied. Four main themes emerged from our findings: perceptions of clinical expertise, parent empowerment, support group activities and community building via an Internet platform. Our thematic analysis enabled the construction of a possible model of information-seeking behaviour in parents and carers of children with 22q11.2 DS. We discuss the model and how the understanding of how information is shared and gathered can aid in clinical practice

Caveats in science-based news stories communicate caution without lowering interest

Science stories in the media are strongly linked to changes in health-related behavior. Science writers (including journalists, press officers, and researchers) must therefore frame their stories to communicate scientific caution without disrupting coherence and disengaging the reader. In this study we investigate whether caveats (“Further research is needed to validate the results”) satisfy this dual requirement. In four experiments participants read news reports with and without caveats. In Experiments 1 to 3, participants judged how cautious or confident researchers were, and how interesting or comprehensible they found the reports. News reports with caveats were judged as more cautious that those without, but levels of reader interest and comprehensibility were unaffected. In a fourth experiment, we created a mock newsroom and recruited journalism students to make judgments about which press releases should be published. Here, neither caveats nor the introduction of qualifying expressions in headlines had an effect on judgments of newsworthiness, consistent with Experiments 1 to 3. The reasons participants gave for rejecting a press release rarely referred to the caveat. Our results therefore suggest that science writers should include caveats in news reporting and that they can do so without fear of disengaging their readers or losing news uptak

Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial

Background Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment between causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not interested in communicating caution). Methods We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news: (a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious for correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The ‘participants’ were press releases on health-related topics (N = 312; control = 89, claim alignment = 64, causality statement = 79, both = 80) from nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims, caveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N = 2257), news uptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious statements). Results News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR = 1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR = 1.3 to 4.4). News claims also followed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR = 1.4 to 5.7). The same was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR = 0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There was no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR = 0.7 to 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR = 0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs 52%, OR = 1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and caveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR = 1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively). Conclusions News claims—even headlines—can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and explicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from AT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press releases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across conditions

Expert quotes and exaggeration in health news: a retrospective quantitative content analysis

Background This research is an investigation into the role of expert quotes in health news, specifically whether news articles containing a quote from an independent expert are less often exaggerated than articles without such a quote. Methods Retrospective quantitative content analysis of journal articles, press releases, and associated news articles was performed. The investigated sample are press releases on peer-reviewed health research and the associated research articles and news stories. Our sample consisted of 462 press releases and 668 news articles from the UK (2011) and 129 press releases and 185 news articles from The Netherlands (2015). We hand-coded all journal articles, press releases and news articles for correlational claims, using a well-tested codebook. The main outcome measures are types of sources that were quoted and exaggeration of correlational claims. We used counts, 2x2 tables and odds ratios to assess the relationship between presence of quotes and exaggeration of the causal claim. Results Overall, 99.1% of the UK press releases and 84.5% of the Dutch press releases contain at least one quote. For the associated news articles these percentages are: 88.6% in the UK and 69.7% in the Netherlands. Authors of the study are most often quoted and only 7.5% of UK and 7.0% of Dutch news articles contained a new quote by an expert source, i.e. one not provided by the press release. The relative odds that an article without an external expert quote contains an exaggeration of causality is 2.6. Conclusions The number of articles containing a quote from an independent expert is low, but articles that cite an external expert do contain less exaggeration

Neuropsychiatric risk in children with intellectual disability of genetic origin: IMAGINE, a UK national cohort study

Background Children with intellectual disability frequently have multiple co-morbid neuropsychiatric conditions and poor physical health. Genomic testing is increasingly recommended as a first-line investigation for these children. We aim to determine the effect of genomics, inheritance, and socioeconomic deprivation on neuropsychiatric risk in children with intellectual disability of genetic origin as compared with the general population. Methods IMAGINE is a prospective cohort study using online mental health and medical assessments in a cohort of 3407 UK participants with intellectual disability and pathogenic genomic variants as identified by the UK's National Health Service (NHS). Our study is on a subset of these participants, including all children aged 4–19 years. We collected diagnostic genomic reports from NHS records and asked primary caregivers to provide an assessment of their child using the Development and Well-Being Assessment (DAWBA), the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), the Adaptive Behaviour Assessment System 3 (ABAS-3), and a medical history questionnaire. Each child was assigned a rank based on their postcode using the index of multiple deprivation (IMD). We compared the IMAGINE cohort with the 2017 National Survey of Children's Mental Health in England. The main outcomes of interest were mental health and neurodevelopment according to the DAWBA and SDQ. Findings We recruited 2770 children from the IMAGINE study between Oct 1, 2014 and June 30, 2019, of whom 2397 (86·5%) had a basic assessment of their mental health completed by their families and 1277 (46·1%) completed a medical history questionnaire. The mean age of participants was 9·2 years (SD 3·9); 1339 (55·9%) were boys and 1058 (44·1%) were girls. 355 (27·8%) of 1277 reported a seizure disorder and 814 (63·7%) reported movement or co-ordination problems. 1771 (73·9%) of 2397 participants had a pathogenic copy number variant (CNV) and 626 (26·1%) had a pathogenic single nucleotide variant (SNV). Participants were representative of the socioeconomic spectrum of the UK general population. The relative risk (RR) of co-occurring neuropsychiatric diagnoses, compared with the English national population, was high: autism spectrum disorder RR 29·2 (95% CI 23·9–36·5), ADHD RR 13·5 (95% CI 11·1–16·3). In children with a CNV, those with a familial variant tended to live in more socioeconomically deprived areas than those with a de novo variant. Both inheritance and socioeconomic deprivation contributed to neuropsychiatric risk in those with a CNV. Interpretation Children with genomic variants and intellectual disability are at an increased risk of neuropsychiatric difficulties. CNV variant inheritance and socioeconomic deprivation also contribute to the risk. Early genomic investigations of children with intellectual disability could facilitate the identification of the most vulnerable children. Additionally, harnessing parental expertise using online DAWBA assessments could rapidly identify children with exceptional needs to child mental health services

Identifying reasons for non-acceptance of influenza vaccine in healthcare workers: An observational study using declination form data

Background: Healthcare workers are sometimes required to complete a declination form if they choose not to accept the influenza vaccine. We analysed the declination data with the goal of identifying barriers to vaccination uptake across seasons, staff groups, and pre- and post- arrival of COVID-19. Methods: Reasons for declining the vaccine were gathered from N = 2230 declination forms, collected over four influenza seasons, 2017/2018, 2018/2019, 2019/2020 and 2020/2021, from a single health board in the UK. Reasons were classified according to ten categories and the resulting distribution analysed across year and staff groups. A further analysis considered the two most prevalent categories in more detail. Results: Fear of adverse reactions and Lack of perception of own risk were identified as primary reasons for not accepting the vaccine across time and across staff groups. However, there was no evidence that Lack of concern with influenza, or Doubts about vaccine efficacy was prevalent, contrary to previous findings. Overall, reasons fitted a pattern of underestimating risk associated with influenza and overestimating risk of minor adverse reactions. There were also differences across years, χ2(24) = 123, p < .001. In particular, there were relatively fewer Lack of perception of own risk responses post-COVID-19 arrival than before, χ2(8) = 28.93, p = .002. Conclusion: This study shows that data collected from declination forms yields sensible information concerning vaccine non-acceptance without the difficulties of retrospective or pre-emptive reasoning suffered by questionnaires. Our findings will aid messaging campaigns designed to encourage uptake of the influenza vaccine in healthcare workers. In particular, we argue for an approach focused on risk perception rather than correction of straightforward misconception