JMIR Publications

ABSTRACT

Background:

The propagation of health misinformation through social media has become a major public health concern over the last two decades. Although today there is broad agreement among health professionals and policy makers on the need to control health misinformation, there is still little evidence about the effects that the dissemination of false or misleading health messages through social media could have on public health in the near future. Nor is there sufficient evidence on alternative ways to effectively combat health misinformation online. Before adopting necessary measures, we must first discover which health misinformation topics are most prevalent and which social media platforms are most frequently used to spread them.

Objective:

This systematic review aims to identify the main health misinformation topics and their prevalence on different social media platforms, focusing on methodological quality and the diverse solutions that are being implemented to address this public health concern.

Methods:

A systematic review was conducted by searching PubMed, MEDLINE, Scopus and the Web of Science for articles published in English before March 2019 with a particular focus on studying health misinformation in social media. Additional studies were identified and selected by searching bibliographies of electronically retrieved review articles.

Results:

Health misinformation proved to be more prevalent in studies related to smoking hookahs and other water pipes, e-cigarettes, and drugs such as opioids or marihuana. Health misinformation about vaccines was also very common. However, studies reported different levels of health misinformation depending on the type of vaccine studied with the HPV vaccine being the most affected. Secondly, health misinformation related to diets or pro-ED arguments were moderate in comparison to the aforementioned topics. Studies focused on diseases (i.e. NCDs and pandemics) also reported moderate misinformation rates, especially in the case of cancer. Finally, the lowest levels of health misinformation were related to medical treatments.

Conclusions:

Prevalence of misinformation varies according to differences in topics and social media platforms. This systematic review offers a comprehensive comparative framework that identifies the main action areas in the study of health misinformation in social media.