Browsing by Subject "Misinformation"

Now showing 1 - 5 of 5
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Describing Hidradenitis Suppurativa Misinformation Diffusion Among Facebook Users: A Content Analysis
    (Matrix Medical Communications, 2023) Méndez, Alejandra; Rao, Megana; Rahnama-Moghadam, Sahand; Gomaa, Basma; Walsh-Buhi, Eric R.; Dermatology, School of Medicine
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Instagram Versus Reality: Who Are Actually Plastic Surgeons?
    (Wolters Kluwer, 2025-01-10) Singh, Nikhi P.; Holohan, Mary M.; Harmon, Cameron; Fallah, Kasra N.; Gross, Jeffrey; Patel, Aadarsh; Boyd, Carter J.; Greives, Matthew R.; de la Torre, Jorge; Gordillo, Gayle; King, Timothy W.; Surgery, School of Medicine
    Background: Instagram has become one of the most powerful marketing tools available to plastic surgeons because patients have increasingly turned to online resources to find physicians. Within, we review the online presence of self-ascribed plastic surgeons in the United States to identify potential misinformation and dishonest advertising. Methods: The Inflact database was queried for the search terms: "plastic surgeon/surgery," "plastic and reconstructive surgeon/surgery," "aesthetic surgeon/surgery," and "cosmetic surgeon/surgery." US physician account information, history of medical training, American Board of Plastic Surgery (ABPS) certification status, and posts were reviewed. Results: In total, 1399 physicians practicing within the United States were identified. Most attended medical school in the United States (93%), a minority received integrated plastic surgery training in the United States (14%), and the majority attended general surgery residency in the United States (57%) followed by independent plastic surgery residency in the United States (50%). Altogether, 1141 individuals were explicitly listed as "plastic surgeons" on Instagram, nearly a quarter of these (325 individuals, 28%) were not certified by the ABPS, and nearly a fifth (251 individuals, 22%) received no training in plastic surgery. Conclusions: Nearly one-third of "plastic surgeons" on Instagram are not certified through the ABPS. This is detrimental to the reputation of plastic surgery and has the potential to create broader consequences and may lead to patients mistakenly receiving care from unqualified physicians. It is paramount that plastic surgeons create a united front against such endeavors through advocacy efforts within the American Society of Plastic Surgeons.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Misinformation about COVID-19: evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science
    (Springer Nature, 2021-01-07) Agley, Jon; Xiao, Yunyu; School of Social Work
    Background: The global spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has been mirrored by diffusion of misinformation and conspiracy theories about its origins (such as 5G cellular networks) and the motivations of preventive measures like vaccination, social distancing, and face masks (for example, as a political ploy). These beliefs have resulted in substantive, negative real-world outcomes but remain largely unstudied. Methods: This was a cross-sectional, online survey (n=660). Participants were asked about the believability of five selected COVID-19 narratives, their political orientation, their religious commitment, and their trust in science (a 21-item scale), along with sociodemographic items. Data were assessed descriptively, then latent profile analysis was used to identify subgroups with similar believability profiles. Bivariate (ANOVA) analyses were run, then multivariable, multivariate logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with membership in specific COVID-19 narrative believability profiles. Results: For the full sample, believability of the narratives varied, from a low of 1.94 (SD=1.72) for the 5G narrative to a high of 5.56 (SD=1.64) for the zoonotic (scientific consensus) narrative. Four distinct belief profiles emerged, with the preponderance (70%) of the sample falling into Profile 1, which believed the scientifically accepted narrative (zoonotic origin) but not the misinformed or conspiratorial narratives. Other profiles did not disbelieve the zoonotic explanation, but rather believed additional misinformation to varying degrees. Controlling for sociodemographics, political orientation and religious commitment were marginally, and typically non-significantly, associated with COVID-19 belief profile membership. However, trust in science was a strong, significant predictor of profile membership, with lower trust being substantively associated with belonging to Profiles 2 through 4. Conclusions: Belief in misinformation or conspiratorial narratives may not be mutually exclusive from belief in the narrative reflecting scientific consensus; that is, profiles were distinguished not by belief in the zoonotic narrative, but rather by concomitant belief or disbelief in additional narratives. Additional, renewed dissemination of scientifically accepted narratives may not attenuate belief in misinformation. However, prophylaxis of COVID-19 misinformation might be achieved by taking concrete steps to improve trust in science and scientists, such as building understanding of the scientific process and supporting open science initiatives.