Dickinson Robert, Makowski Dominique, van Marwijk Harm, Ford Elizabeth
Department of Primary Care and Public Health, Brighton and Sussex Medical School, Brighton, United Kingdom.
Department of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2025 Apr 24;20(4):e0321818. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0321818. eCollection 2025.
Misinformation is a growing concern worldwide, particularly in public health following the COVID-19 pandemic in which misinformation has been attributed to tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. Therefore a search for effective interventions against misinformation is underway, with widely varying proposed interventions, measures of efficacy, and groups targeted for intervention. This realist systematic review of proposed interventions against COVID-19 misinformation assesses the studies themselves, the characteristics and effectiveness of the interventions proposed, the durability of effect, and the circumstances and contexts within which these interventions function. We searched several databases for studies testing interventions published from 2020 onwards. The search results were sorted by eligibility, with eligible studies then being coded by themes and assessed for quality. Thirty-five studies were included, representing eight types of intervention. The results are promising to the advantages of game-type interventions, with other types scoring poorly on either scalability or impact. Backfire effects and effects on subgroups were reported on intermittently in the included studies, showing the advantages of certain interventions for subgroups or contexts. No one intervention appears sufficient by itself, therefore this study recommends the creation of packages of interventions by policymakers, who can tailor the package for contexts and targeted groups. There was high heterogeneity in outcome measures and methods, making comparisons between studies difficult; this should be a focus in future studies. Additionally, the theoretical and intervention literatures need connecting for greater understanding of the mechanisms at work in the interventions. Lastly, there is a need for work more explicitly addressing political polarisation and its role in the belief and spread of misinformation. This study contributes toward the expansion of realist review approaches, understandings of COVID-19 misinformation interventions, and broader debates around the nature of politicisation in contemporary misinformation.
错误信息在全球范围内日益引起关注,尤其是在新冠疫情之后的公共卫生领域,在该疫情中,错误信息已被归咎于数以万计的不必要死亡。因此,针对错误信息的有效干预措施的探索正在进行中,所提出的干预措施、疗效衡量标准以及干预目标群体各不相同。这项针对新冠疫情错误信息的拟议干预措施的现实主义系统评价评估了研究本身、所提出干预措施的特征和有效性、效果的持久性,以及这些干预措施发挥作用的环境和背景。我们在几个数据库中搜索了2020年以后发表的测试干预措施的研究。搜索结果按资格进行分类,符合条件的研究随后按主题进行编码并评估质量。纳入了35项研究,代表了8种干预类型。结果显示游戏类干预措施具有优势,其他类型在可扩展性或影响力方面得分较低。纳入研究中偶尔报告了反效果和对亚组的影响,显示了某些干预措施对亚组或特定背景的优势。没有一种干预措施本身似乎就足够有效,因此本研究建议政策制定者制定干预措施组合,他们可以根据具体情况和目标群体量身定制该组合。结果测量和方法存在高度异质性,使得研究之间难以进行比较;这应成为未来研究的重点。此外,需要将理论文献和干预文献联系起来,以更好地理解干预措施中起作用的机制。最后,需要开展更多工作,更明确地解决政治两极分化及其在错误信息的传播和接受中的作用。本研究有助于扩展现实主义评价方法、对新冠疫情错误信息干预措施的理解,以及围绕当代错误信息中政治化性质的更广泛辩论。