Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, UK.
Homerton College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
BMJ Open. 2021 Jul 8;11(7):e046364. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046364.
Countries have major differences in the acceptance of face mask use for the prevention of COVID-19. This work aims at studying the information online in different countries in terms of information quality and content.
Content analysis.
We analysed 450 webpages returned by searching the string 'are face masks dangerous' in Italy, the UK and the USA using three search engines (Bing, Duckduckgo and Google) in August 2020. The type of website and the stance about masks were assessed by two raters for each language and inter-rater agreement reported as Cohen's kappa. The text of the webpages was collected from the web using WebBootCaT and analysed using a corpus analysis software to identify issues mentioned.
Most pages were news outlets, and few (2%-6%) from public health agencies. Webpages with a negative stance on masks were more frequent in Italian (28%) than English (19%). Google returned the highest number of mask-positive pages and Duckduckgo the lowest. Google also returned the lowest number of pages mentioning conspiracy theories and Duckduckgo the highest. Webpages in Italian scored lower than those in English in transparency (reporting authors, their credentials and backing the information with references). When issues about the use of face masks were analysed, mask effectiveness was the most discussed followed by hypercapnia (accumulation of carbon dioxide), contraindication in respiratory disease and hypoxia, with issues related to their contraindications in mental health conditions and disability mentioned by very few pages.
This study suggests that: (1) public health agencies should increase their web presence in providing correct information on face masks; (2) search engines should improve the information quality criteria in their ranking; (3) the public should be more informed on issues related to the use of masks and disabilities, mental health and stigma arising for those people who cannot wear masks.
各国在接受口罩预防 COVID-19 方面存在重大差异。本研究旨在从信息质量和内容方面研究不同国家的在线信息。
内容分析。
我们于 2020 年 8 月使用三个搜索引擎(Bing、Duckduckgo 和 Google),以“口罩是否危险”为字符串搜索了意大利、英国和美国的 450 个网页。使用两位评分者评估每个语言的网站类型和口罩立场,并报告了组内相关系数(Cohen's kappa)。使用 WebBootCaT 从网络上收集网页文本,并使用语料库分析软件对其进行分析,以识别提到的问题。
大多数网页是新闻媒体,只有很少一部分(2%-6%)来自公共卫生机构。意大利网页对口罩持否定立场的比例高于英语网页(28%比 19%)。Google 返回的口罩正面网页数量最多,Duckduckgo 则最少。Google 返回的提到阴谋论的网页数量也最少,而 Duckduckgo 则最多。意大利语网页的透明度(报告作者、他们的资历,并参考信息)比英语网页得分低。当分析口罩使用问题时,口罩有效性是讨论最多的,其次是 Hypercapnia(二氧化碳积聚)、呼吸疾病和缺氧的禁忌症,很少有网页提到与心理健康状况和残疾相关的禁忌症问题。
本研究表明:(1)公共卫生机构应增加其网络存在,提供有关口罩的正确信息;(2)搜索引擎应提高其排名的信息质量标准;(3)公众应更多地了解与口罩使用和残疾、心理健康和耻辱感相关的问题,这些问题对于那些无法戴口罩的人来说是存在的。