The internet has become a popular resource to learn about health and to investigate one's own health condition. However, given the large amount of inaccurate information online, people can easily become misinformed. Individuals have always obtained information from outside the formal health care system, so how has the internet changed people's engagement with health information? This review explores how individuals interact with health misinformation online, whether it be through search, user-generated content, or mobile apps. We discuss whether personal access to information is helping or hindering health outcomes and how the perceived trustworthiness of the institutions communicating health has changed over time. To conclude, we propose several constructive strategies for improving the online information ecosystem. Misinformation concerning health has particularly severe consequences with regard to people's quality of life and even their risk of mortality; therefore, understanding it within today's modern context is an extremely important task.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


Literature Cited

  1. 1. 
    Abroms LC, Padmanabhan N, Thaweethai L, Phillips T 2011. iPhone apps for smoking cessation: a content analysis. Am. J. Prev. Med. 40:3279–85
    [Google Scholar]
  2. 2. 
    Aird MJ, Ecker UK, Swire B, Berinsky AJ, Lewandowsky S 2018. Does truth matter to voters? The effects of correcting political misinformation in an Australian sample. R. Soc. Open Sci. 5:12180593
    [Google Scholar]
  3. 3. 
    Aizikovitsh-Udi E, Cheng D. 2015. Developing critical thinking skills from dispositions to abilities: mathematics education from early childhood to high school. Creat. Educ. 6:455–62
    [Google Scholar]
  4. 4. 
    Armstrong GM, Gurol MN, Russ FA 1983. A longitudinal evaluation of the Listerine corrective advertising campaign. J. Public Policy Mark. 2:116–28
    [Google Scholar]
  5. 5. 
    Asch JM, Asch DA, Klinger EV, Marks J, Sadek N, Merchant RM 2019. Google search histories of patients presenting to an emergency department: an observational study. BMJ Open 9:2e024791
    [Google Scholar]
  6. 6. 
    ASCO (Am. Soc. Clin. Oncol.) 2018. National Cancer Opinion Survey, Harris poll on behalf of ASCO, 2018 Rep., ASCO/Harris Poll, Alexandria, VA/Rochester, NY: https://www.asco.org/research-guidelines/reports-studies/national-cancer-opinion-survey
  7. 7. 
    Berger J, Milkman KL. 2012. What makes online content viral?. J. Mark. Res. 49:2192–205
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 8. 
    Bergsma LJ, Carney ME. 2008. Effectiveness of health-promoting media literacy education: a systematic review. Health Educ. Res. 23:3522–42
    [Google Scholar]
  9. 9. 
    Berkman ND, Sheridan SL, Donahue KE, Halpern DJ, Crotty K 2011. Low health literacy and health outcomes: an updated systematic review. Ann. Intern. Med. 155:297–107
    [Google Scholar]
  10. 10. 
    Besley JC, Tanner AH. 2011. What science communication scholars think about training scientists to communicate. Sci. Commun. 33:2239–63
    [Google Scholar]
  11. 11. 
    Blair RA, Morse BS, Tsai LL 2017. Public health and public trust: survey evidence from the Ebola Virus Disease epidemic in Liberia. Soc. Sci. Med. 172:89–97
    [Google Scholar]
  12. 12. 
    Bode L, Vraga EK. 2015. In related news, that was wrong: the correction of misinformation through related stories functionality in social media. J. Commun. 65:4619–38
    [Google Scholar]
  13. 13. 
    Bornstein BH, Emler AC. 2001. Rationality in medical decision making: a review of the literature on doctors’ decision-making biases. J. Eval. Clin. Pract. 7:297–107
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 14. 
    Brashier NM, Schacter DL.2020 Aging in a fake news era. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
  15. 15. 
    Brenan M. 2018. Nurses again outpace other professions for honesty, ethics. Gallup Dec. 20. https://news.gallup.com/poll/245597/nurses-again-outpace-professions-honesty-ethics.aspx/
    [Google Scholar]
  16. [Google Scholar]
  17. 17. 
    Chinn D. 2011. Critical health literacy: a review and critical analysis. Soc. Sci. Med. 73:160–67
    [Google Scholar]
  18. 18. 
    Chou W-YS, Oh A, Klein WMP 2018. Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. JAMA 320:232417–18
    [Google Scholar]
  19. 19. 
    City N. Y. 2019. De Blasio Administration's Health Department declares public health emergency due to measles crisis Press Release, April 9. https://www1.nyc.gov/office-of-the-mayor/news/186-19/de-blasio-administration-s-health-department-declares-public-health-emergency-due-measles-crisis#/0
  20. 20. 
    Clark County Public Health 2019. County declares public health emergency due to measles outbreak News Release, Jan. 18. https://www.clark.wa.gov/public-health/county-declares-public-health-emergency-due-measles-outbreak
  21. 21. 
    Clement J. 2019. Most famous social network sites worldwide as of April 2019, ranked by number of active users (in millions). Statista Sept. 6. https://www.statista.com/statistics/272014/global-social-networks-ranked-by-number-of-users/
    [Google Scholar]
  22. 22. 
    Cooper BE, Lee WE, Goldacre BM, Sanders TA 2012. The quality of the evidence for dietary advice given in UK national newspapers. Public Underst. Sci. 21:6664–73
    [Google Scholar]
  23. 23. 
    Cotten SR, Gupta SS. 2004. Characteristics of online and offline health information seekers and factors that discriminate between them. Soc. Sci. Med. 59:91795–806
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 24. 
    Crocco AG, Villasis-Keever M, Jadad AR 2002. Analysis of cases of harm associated with use of health information on the Internet. JAMA 287:212869–71
    [Google Scholar]
  25. 25. 
    Eagly AH, Chaiken S. 1993. The Psychology of Attitudes Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Coll.
  26. 26. 
    Ecker UK, Hogan JL, Lewandowsky S 2017. Reminders and repetition of misinformation: helping or hindering its retraction. J. Appl. Res. Mem. Cogn. 6:2185–92
    [Google Scholar]
  27. 27. 
    Ecker UK, Lewandowsky S, Swire B, Chang D 2011. Correcting false information in memory: manipulating the strength of misinformation encoding and its retraction. Psychon. Bull. Rev. 18:3570–78
    [Google Scholar]
  28. 28. 
    Eckert S, Sopory P, Day A, Wilkins L, Padgett D et al. 2018. Health-related disaster communication and social media: mixed-method systematic review. Health Commun 33:121389–400
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 29. 
    Edelman 2018. 2018 Edelman trust barometer. Annual global study Rep., Edelman Chicago: https://www.edelman.com/research/2018-edelman-trust-barometer
  30. 30. 
    Engstrand-Neacsu A, Wynter A. 2009. Through albino eyes: the plight of albino people in Africa's Great Lakes region and a Red Cross response Advocacy Rep., Int. Fed. Red Cross Red Crescent Soc Geneva: https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/E492621871523879C12576730045A2F4-Full_Report.pdf
  31. 31. 
    Eysenbach G, Powell J, Kuss O, Sa ER 2002. Empirical studies assessing the quality of health information for consumers on the World Wide Web: a systematic review. JAMA 287:202691–700
    [Google Scholar]
  32. 32. 
    Fernández-Celemín L, Jung A. 2006. What should be the role of the media in nutrition communication?. Br. J. Nutr. 96:S1S86–88
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 33. 
    Fischer S. 2018. NewsGuard launches first product with help from Microsoft. Axios Aug. 23. https://www.axios.com/newsguard-launches-first-product-2143fc9e-470f-44b6-b8f1-6006646d26db.html
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 34. 
    Fox S, Duggan M. 2013. Health online 2013 Pew Res. Cent., Internet Technol., Jan. 15. https://www.pewinternet.org/2013/01/15/health-online-2013/
  35. 35. 
    Freed GL, Clark SJ, Butchart AT, Singer DC, Davis MM 2011. Sources and perceived credibility of vaccine-safety information for parents. Pediatrics 127:Suppl. 1S107–12
    [Google Scholar]
  36. 36. 
    Funk C, Kennedy B. 2019. Public confidence in scientists has remained stable for decades Pew Res. Cent., Fact Tank, March 22. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/03/22/public-confidence-in-scientists-has-remained-stable-for-decades/
  37. 37. 
    Getman R, Helmi M, Roberts H, Yansane A, Cutler D, Seymour B 2018. Vaccine hesitancy and online information: the influence of digital networks. Health Educ. Behav. 45:4599–606
    [Google Scholar]
  38. 38. 
    Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W, Kurz-Milcke E, Schwartz LM, Woloshin S 2007. Helping doctors and patients make sense of health statistics. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 8:253–96
    [Google Scholar]
  39. 39. 
    Giles J. 2005. Internet encyclopaedias go head to head. Nature 434:900–1
    [Google Scholar]
  40. 40. 
    Goel S, Anderson A, Hofman J, Watts DJ 2016. The structural virality of online diffusion. Manag. Sci. 62:1180–96
    [Google Scholar]
  41. 41. 
    Goldacre B. 2010. Bad Science: Quacks, Hacks, and Big Pharma Flacks Toronto: McClelland & Stewart
  42. 42. 
    Grinberg N, Joseph K, Friedland L, Swire-Thompson B, Lazer D 2019. Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election. Science 363:6425374–78
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 43. 
    Guess A, Nagler J, Tucker J 2019. Less than you think: prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook. Sci. Adv. 5:1eaau4586
    [Google Scholar]
  44. 44. 
    Guess A, Nyhan B, Lyons B, Reifler J 2018. Avoiding the echo chamber about echo chambers: why selective exposure to like-minded political news is less prevalent than you think White Pap., Knight Found Miami, FL: https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/133/original/Topos_KF_White-Paper_Nyhan_V1.pdf
  45. 45. 
    Guidry JP, Carlyle K, Messner M, Jin Y 2015. On pins and needles: how vaccines are portrayed on Pinterest. Vaccine 33:395051–56
    [Google Scholar]
  46. 46. 
    Haber N, Smith ER, Moscoe E, Andrews K, Audy R et al. 2018. Causal language and strength of inference in academic and media articles shared in social media (CLAIMS): a systematic review. PLOS ONE 13:5e0196346
    [Google Scholar]
  47. 47. 
    Hart A, Henwood F, Wyatt S 2004. The role of the Internet in patient-practitioner relationships: findings from a qualitative research study. J. Med. Internet Res. 6:3e36
    [Google Scholar]
  48. 48. 
    Hawke B, Przybylo AR, Paciulli D, Caulfield T, Zarzeczny A, Master Z 2019. How to peddle hope: an analysis of YouTube patient testimonials of unproven stem cell treatments. Stem Cell Rep 12:61186–89
    [Google Scholar]
  49. 49. 
    Heath C, Bell C, Sternberg E 2001. Emotional selection in memes: the case of urban legends. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 81:61028–41
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 50. 
    Heilman JM, Kemmann E, Bonert M, Chatterjee A, Ragar B et al. 2011. Wikipedia: a key tool for global public health promotion. J. Med. Internet Res. 13:1e14
    [Google Scholar]
  51. 51. 
    Henle CA, Dineen BR, Duffy MK 2019. Assessing intentional resume deception: development and nomological network of a resume fraud measure. J. Bus. Psychol. 34:187–106
    [Google Scholar]
  52. 52. 
    Hoffman SJ, Tan C. 2015. Biological, psychological and social processes that explain celebrities’ influence on patients’ health-related behaviors. Arch. Public Health 73:13
    [Google Scholar]
  53. 53. 
    Iannacone MR, Green AC. 2014. Towards skin cancer prevention and early detection: evolution of skin cancer awareness campaigns in Australia. Melanoma Manag 1:175–84
    [Google Scholar]
  54. 54. 
    Jacobs W, Amuta AO, Jeon KC 2017. Health information seeking in the digital age: an analysis of health information seeking behavior among US adults. Cogent. Soc. Sci. 3:11302785
    [Google Scholar]
  55. 55. 
    Johnson HM, Seifert CM. 1994. Sources of the continued influence effect: when misinformation in memory affects later inferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 20:61420–36
    [Google Scholar]
  56. 56. 
    Johnson SB, Park HS, Gross CP, Yu JB 2017. Use of alternative medicine for cancer and its impact on survival. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 110:1121–24
    [Google Scholar]
  57. 57. 
    Kearns CE, Schmidt LA, Glantz SA 2016. Sugar industry and coronary heart disease research: a historical analysis of internal industry documents. JAMA Intern. Med. 176:111680–85
    [Google Scholar]
  58. 58. 
    Kennedy B. 2016. Most Americans trust the military and scientists to act in the public's interest Pew Res. Cent., Fact Tank, Oct. 18. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/10/18/most-americans-trust-the-military-and-scientists-to-act-in-the-publics-interest/
  59. 59. 
    Keselman A, Browne AC, Kaufman DR 2008. Consumer health information seeking as hypothesis testing. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 15:4484–95
    [Google Scholar]
  60. 60. 
    Kowitt SD, Schmidt AM, Hannan A, Goldstein AO 2017. Awareness and trust of the FDA and CDC: results from a national sample of US adults and adolescents. PLOS ONE 12:5e0177546
    [Google Scholar]
  61. 61. 
    Krummel DA, Seligson FH, Guthrie HA, Gans DA 1996. Hyperactivity: Is candy causal. Crit. Rev. Food Sci. Nutr. 36:1–231–47
    [Google Scholar]
  62. 62. 
    Kutner M, Greenburg E, Jin Y, Paulsen C 2006. The health literacy of America's adults: results from the 2003 National Assessment of Adult Literacy NCES 2006–483, Natl. Center Educ. Stat Washington, DC: https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006483.pdf
  63. 63. 
    Lambert SD, Loiselle CG. 2007. Health information seeking behavior. Qual. Health Res. 17:81006–19
    [Google Scholar]
  64. 64. 
    Larson HJ. 2018. The biggest pandemic risk? Viral misinformation. Nature 562:7727309
    [Google Scholar]
  65. 65. 
    Leithner A, Maurer-Ertl W, Glehr M, Friesenbichler J, Leithner K, Windhager R 2010. Wikipedia and osteosarcoma: a trustworthy patients' information. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 17:4373–74
    [Google Scholar]
  66. 66. 
    Levin L. 2018. 20 things you didn't know you could do with Search. Google Off. Blog Sept. 11. https://www.blog.google/products/search/20-things-you-didnt-know-you-could-do-search/
    [Google Scholar]
  67. 67. 
    Lewandowsky S, Ecker UKH, Seifert CM, Schwarz N, Cook J 2012. Misinformation and its correction: continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 13:3106–31
    [Google Scholar]
  68. 68. 
    Lipworth W, Little M, Markham P, Gordon J, Kerridge I 2013. Doctors on status and respect: a qualitative study. J. Bioeth. Inq. 10:2205–17
    [Google Scholar]
  69. 69. 
    Loeb S, Sengupta S, Butaney M, Macaluso JN Jr, Czarniecki SW et al. 2019. Dissemination of misinformative and biased information about prostate cancer on YouTube. Eur. Urol. 75:4564–67
    [Google Scholar]
  70. 70. 
    Lui K. 2017. An Australian wellness blogger has been fined $322,000 for lying about having cancer. Time Magazine Sept. 28. http://time.com/4960515/australia-belle-gibson-fined-lying-cancer/
    [Google Scholar]
  71. 71. 
    Marsh EJ, Fazio LK. 2006. Learning errors from fiction: difficulties in reducing reliance on fictional stories. Mem. Cogn. 34:51140–49
    [Google Scholar]
  72. 72. 
    McGandy RB, Hegsted DM, Stare FJ 1967. Dietary fats, carbohydrates and atherosclerotic vascular disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 277:4186–92
    [Google Scholar]
  73. 73. 
    McGinnies E, Ward CD. 1980. Better liked than right: trustworthiness and expertise as factors in credibility. Personal. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 6:3467–72
    [Google Scholar]
  74. 74. 
    McMullan M. 2006. Patients using the Internet to obtain health information: how this affects the patient–health professional relationship. Patient Educ. Couns. 63:1–224–28
    [Google Scholar]
  75. 75. 
    Mehta SR, Al-Mahrooqi R. 2015. Can thinking be taught? Linking critical thinking and writing in an EFL context. RELC J 46:123–36
    [Google Scholar]
  76. 76. 
    Miller M. 2013. Melbourne mum Belle Gibson on taking the world by storm with her app The Whole Pantry, while fighting terminal brain cancer. Herald Sun Dec. 5. https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/melbourne-mum-belle-gibson-on-taking-the-world-by-storm-with-her-app-the-whole-pantrywhile-fighting-terminal-brain-cancer/news-story/1cd87c19a066f88d22fc0434fb0bfc55
    [Google Scholar]
  77. 77. 
    Montague M, Borland R, Sinclair C 2001. Slip! Slop! Slap! and SunSmart, 1980–2000: skin cancer control and 20 years of population-based campaigning. Health Educ. Behav. 28:3290–305
    [Google Scholar]
  78. 78. 
    Murphy PW, Davis TC, Long SW, Jackson RH, Decker BC 1993. Rapid estimate of adult literacy in medicine (REALM): a quick reading test for patients. J. Read. 37:2124–30
    [Google Scholar]
  79. 79. 
    Nickerson RS. 1998. Confirmation bias: a ubiquitous phenomenon in many guises. Rev. Gen. Psychol. 2:175–220
    [Google Scholar]
  80. 80. 
    NIH (Natl. Inst. Health), NCI (Natl. Cancer Inst.) 2016. Cancer stat facts: cancer of any site. Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program https://seer.cancer.gov/statfacts/html/all.html
    [Google Scholar]
  81. 81. 
    Nordheim LV, Gundersen MW, Espehaug B, Guttersrud Ø, Flottorp S 2016. Effects of school-based educational interventions for enhancing adolescents abilities in critical appraisal of health claims: a systematic review. PLOS ONE 11:8e0161485
    [Google Scholar]
  82. 82. 
    Norman CD, Skinner HA. 2006. eHEALS: the eHealth literacy scale. J. Med. Internet Res. 8:4e27
    [Google Scholar]
  83. 83. 
    Open Sci. Collab 2015. Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science 349:6251aac4716
    [Google Scholar]
  84. 84. 
    Oreskes N, Conway EM. 2010. Defeating the merchants of doubt. Nature 465:7299686–87
    [Google Scholar]
  85. 85. 
    Pandey A, Hasan S, Dubey D, Sarangi S 2013. Smartphone apps as a source of cancer information: changing trends in health information-seeking behavior. J. Cancer Educ. 28:1138–42
    [Google Scholar]
  86. 86. 
    Parker RM, Baker DW, Williams MV, Nurss JR 1995. The test of functional health literacy in adults: a new instrument for measuring patients’ literacy skills. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 10:10537–41
    [Google Scholar]
  87. 87. 
    Peters K, Kashima Y, Clark A 2009. Talking about others: emotionality and the dissemination of social information. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 39:2207–22
    [Google Scholar]
  88. 88. 
    Pew Res. Cent 2015. Most view the CDC favorably; VA's image slips Pew Res. Cent., U.S. Politics & Policy Jan. 22. https://www.people-press.org/2015/01/22/most-view-the-cdc-favorably-vas-image-slips/
  89. 89. 
    Poland GA, Spier R. 2010. Fear, misinformation, and innumerates: how the Wakefield paper, the press, and advocacy groups damaged the public health. Vaccine 28:122361–62
    [Google Scholar]
  90. 90. 
    Pornpitakpan C. 2004. The persuasiveness of source credibility: a critical review of five decades' evidence. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34:2243–81
    [Google Scholar]
  91. 91. 
    Quinn S, Bond R, Nugent C 2017. Quantifying health literacy and eHealth literacy using existing instruments and browser-based software for tracking online health information seeking behavior. Comput. Hum. Behav. 69:256–67
    [Google Scholar]
  92. 92. 
    Quinn SC, Parmer J, Freimuth VS, Hilyard KM, Musa D, Kim KH 2013. Exploring communication, trust in government, and vaccination intention later in the 2009 H1N1 pandemic: results of a national survey. Biosecur. Bioterror. 11:296–106
    [Google Scholar]
  93. 93. 
    Ramaswami P. 2015. A remedy for your health-related questions: health info in the Knowledge Graph. Google Off. Blog Feb. 10. https://blog.google/products/search/health-info-knowledge-graph/
    [Google Scholar]
  94. 94. 
    Rao P. 2018. Ending albino persecution in Africa. Afr. Renew. 31:326–27
    [Google Scholar]
  95. 95. 
    Rennis L, McNamara G, Seidel E, Shneyderman Y 2015. Google it!: urban community college students’ use of the Internet to obtain self-care and personal health information. Coll. Stud. J. 49:3414–26
    [Google Scholar]
  96. 96. 
    Resende G, Melo P, Sousa H, Messias J, Vasconcelos M et al. 2019. (Mis)information dissemination in WhatsApp: gathering, analyzing and countermeasures. Proceedings of the WWW '19: The World Wide Web Conference818–28 New York: Assoc. Comput. Lit. (ACM)
    [Google Scholar]
  97. 97. 
    Schilder E, Lockee B, Saxon DP 2016. The challenges of assessing media literacy education. J. Media Lit. Educ. 8:132–48
    [Google Scholar]
  98. 98. 
    Schmaltz R, Lilienfeld SO. 2014. Hauntings, homeopathy, and the Hopkinsville Goblins: using pseudoscience to teach scientific thinking. Front. Psychol. 5:336
    [Google Scholar]
  99. 99. 
    Schoenfeld JD, Ioannidis JP. 2013. Is everything we eat associated with cancer? A systematic cookbook review. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 97:1127–34
    [Google Scholar]
  100. 100. 
    Seymour B, Getman R, Saraf A, Zhang LH, Kalenderian E 2015. When advocacy obscures accuracy online: digital pandemics of public health misinformation through an antifluoride case study. Am. J. Public Health 105:3517–23
    [Google Scholar]
  101. 101. 
    Shao C, Ciampaglia GL, Varol O, Yang K-C, Flammini A, Menczer F 2018. The spread of low-credibility content by social bots. Nat. Commun. 9:14787
    [Google Scholar]
  102. 102. 
    Sharma M, Yadav K, Yadav N, Ferdinand KC 2017. Zika virus pandemic—analysis of Facebook as a social media health information platform. Am. J. Infect. Control 45:3301–2
    [Google Scholar]
  103. 103. 
    Shrivastava SR, Shrivastava PS, Ramasamy J 2017. World Health Organization validated websites provide reliable information on vaccine safety. J. Res. Med. Sci. 22:78
    [Google Scholar]
  104. 104. 
    Shwed U, Bearman PS. 2010. The temporal structure of scientific consensus formation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 75:6817–40
    [Google Scholar]
  105. 105. 
    Siegel J. 2018. Resources for teaching news literacy. Soc. Educ. 82:4242–44
    [Google Scholar]
  106. 106. 
    Sommariva S, Vamos C, Mantzarlis A, Đào LUL, Martinez Tyson D 2018. Spreading the (fake) news: exploring health messages on social media and the implications for health professionals using a case study. Am. J. Health Educ. 49:4246–55
    [Google Scholar]
  107. 107. 
    Stevenson FA, Kerr C, Murray E, Nazareth I 2007. Information from the Internet and the doctor-patient relationship: the patient perspective—a qualitative study. BMC Fam. Pract. 8:147
    [Google Scholar]
  108. 108. 
    Sunstein CR. 2018. #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
  109. 109. 
    Suppli CH, Hansen ND, Rasmussen M, Valentiner-Branth P, Krause TG, Mølbak K 2018. Decline in HPV-vaccination uptake in Denmark—the association between HPV-related media coverage and HPV-vaccination. BMC Public Health 18:11360
    [Google Scholar]
  110. 110. 
    Swift A. 2016. Americans’ trust in mass media sinks to new low. Gallup News Sept. 14. https://news.gallup.com/poll/195542/americans-trust-mass-media-sinks-new-low.aspx
    [Google Scholar]
  111. 111. 
    Swire B, Berinsky AJ, Lewandowsky S, Ecker UK 2017. Processing political misinformation: comprehending the Trump phenomenon. R. Soc. Open Sci. 4:3160802
    [Google Scholar]
  112. 112. 
    Swire B, Ecker UKH. 2018. Misinformation and its correction: cognitive mechanisms and recommendations for mass communication. Misinformation and Mass Audiences B Southwell, EA Thorson, L Shelble 195–211 Austin, TX: Univ. Tex. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  113. 113. 
    Swire B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S 2017. The role of familiarity in correcting inaccurate information. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cogn. 43:121948–61
    [Google Scholar]
  114. 114. 
    Swire-Thompson B, Ecker UKH, Lewandowsky S, Berinsky AJ 2020. They might be a liar but they're my liar: source evaluation and the prevalence of misinformation. Political Psychol 41:12134
    [Google Scholar]
  115. 115. 
    Takayasu M, Sato K, Sano Y, Yamada K, Miura W, Takayasu H 2015. Rumor diffusion and convergence during the 3.11 earthquake: a Twitter case study. PLOS ONE 10:4e0121443
    [Google Scholar]
  116. 116. 
    Tan SSL, Goonawardene N. 2017. Internet health information seeking and the patient-physician relationship: a systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 19:1e9
    [Google Scholar]
  117. 117. 
    Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington C, Petropoulos MC, Favot-Mayaud I et al. 1999. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 353:91692026–29
    [Google Scholar]
  118. 118. 
    Temgoua MN, Tochie JN, Danwang C, Aletum VM, Tankeu R 2018. An innovative technology to curb maternal and child mortality in sub-Saharan Africa: the GiftedMom™ approach. Clin. Res. Obstet. Gynecol. 1:11–3
    [Google Scholar]
  119. 119. 
    Thoman E, Jolls T. 2005. Literacy for the 21st century: an overview and orientation guide to media literacy education MediaLit Kit, Cent. Media Lit Los Angeles: http://www.medialit.org/sites/default/files/01_MLKorientation.pdf
  120. 120. 
    Tucker JA, Guess A, Barberá P, Vaccari C, Siegel A et al. 2018. Social media, political polarization, and political disinformation: a review of the scientific literature Rep., Hewlett Found Menlo Park, CA: https://hewlett.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Social-Media-Political-Polarization-and-Political-Disinformation-Literature-Review.pdf
  121. 121. 
    Vargesson N. 2009. Thalidomide-induced limb defects: resolving a 50-year-old puzzle. Bioessays 31:121327–36
    [Google Scholar]
  122. 122. 
    Vargesson N. 2015. Thalidomide-induced teratogenesis: history and mechanisms. Birth Defects Res. C Embryo Today 105:2140–56
    [Google Scholar]
  123. 123. 
    Vernon JA, Trujillo A, Rosenbaum SJ, DeBuono B 2007. Low health literacy: implications for national health policy Rep., George Wash. Univ Washington, DC: https://publichealth.gwu.edu/departments/healthpolicy/CHPR/downloads/LowHealthLiteracyReport10_4_07.pdf
  124. 124. 
    Vogel SN, Sultan TR, Ten Eyck RP 1981. Cyanide poisoning. Clin. Toxicol. 18:3367–83
    [Google Scholar]
  125. 125. 
    Vosoughi S, Roy D, Aral S 2018. The spread of true and false news online. Science 359:63801146–51
    [Google Scholar]
  126. 126. 
    Vraga EK, Bode L. 2017. Using expert sources to correct health misinformation in social media. Sci. Commun. 39:5621–45
    [Google Scholar]
  127. 127. 
    Wakefield AJ, Murch SH, Anthony A, Linnell J, Casson DM et al. 1998. RETRACTED: Ileal-lymphoid-nodular hyperplasia, non-specific colitis, and pervasive developmental disorder in children. Lancet 351:637–41
    [Google Scholar]
  128. 128. 
    Wardle C. 2017. Fake news. It's complicated. First Draft News Feb. 16. https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/fake-news-complicated/
    [Google Scholar]
  129. 129. 
    Warner D, Procaccino JD. 2004. Toward wellness: women seeking health information. J. Am. Soc. Inform. Sci. Technol. 55:8709–30
    [Google Scholar]
  130. 130. 
    WebMD 2019. User reviews & ratings—apricot kernel. WebMD https://www.webmd.com/vitamins-supplements/ingredientreview-1190-APRICOT+KERNEL
    [Google Scholar]
  131. 131. 
    WHO (World Health Organ.) 2019. European Region loses ground in effort to eliminate measles Press Release, Aug. 29. http://www.euro.who.int/en/media-centre/sections/press-releases/2019/european-region-loses-ground-in-effort-to-eliminate-measles
  132. 132. 
    Wood T, Porter E. 2019. The elusive backfire effect: mass attitudes’ steadfast factual adherence. Political Behav 41:1135–63
    [Google Scholar]
  133. 133. 
    Zhang J, Le G, Larochelle D, Pasick R, Sawaya GF et al. 2019. Facts or stories? How to use social media for cervical cancer prevention: a multi-method study of the effects of sender type and content type on increased message sharing. Prev. Med. 126:105751
    [Google Scholar]
  134. 134. 
    Zhang Y, Sun Y, Xie B 2015. Quality of health information for consumers on the web: a systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66:102071–84
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error