Defining Misinformation and Related Terms in Health-Related Literature: Scoping Review

Area of Science:

• Health communication
• Medical informatics
• Public health policy

Background:

• Misinformation presents a significant obstacle to effective clinical and policy decision-making in healthcare.
• The COVID-19 pandemic heightened interest in misinformation and led to a surge in its definitions within health literature.

Purpose of the Study:

• To systematically assess and analyze the various definitions of misinformation and associated terms within the health-related scientific literature.

Main Methods:

• Conducted a scoping review of systematic reviews published within the last five years up to March 2023.
• Searched major databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, Epistemonikos) for eligible systematic reviews.
• Extracted and mapped concepts from definitions of misinformation, disinformation, fake news, infodemic, and malinformation.

Main Results:

• Included 41 systematic reviews, with 75 definitions identified for misinformation and related terms, predominantly concerning public health emergencies.
• Key concepts like 'false/inaccurate/incorrect' appeared frequently, while 'information overload' characterized infodemic definitions.
• A significant portion (75%) of definitions were referenced from other sources, indicating a lack of original conceptualization.

Conclusions:

• Definitions of misinformation and related terms in health literature exhibit variability and inconsistencies, particularly concerning intentionality and content.
• Concepts like 'intentionality' are challenging to operationalize, complicating accurate classification of health information.
• Health practitioners require precise, operational definitions to avoid mislabeling information and to foster consensus on clear terminology.