Communication of COVID-19 Misinformation on Social Media by Physicians in the US

Abstract

ImportanceApproximately one-third of the more than 1 100 000 confirmed COVID-19–related deaths as of January 18, 2023, were considered preventable if public health recommendations had been followed. Physicians’ propagation of misinformation about COVID-19 on social media and other internet-based platforms has raised professional, public health, and ethical concerns.ObjectiveTo characterize (1) the types of COVID-19 misinformation propagated by US physicians after vaccines became available, (2) the online platforms used, and (3) the characteristics of the physicians spreading misinformation.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsUsing US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines for the prevention and treatment of COVID-19 infection during the study window to define misinformation, structured searches of high-use social media platforms (Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Parler, and YouTube) and news sources (The New York Times, National Public Radio) were conducted to identify COVID-19 misinformation communicated by US-based physicians between January 2021 and December 2022. Physicians’ state of licensure and medical specialty were identified. The number of followers for each physician on 4 major platforms was extracted to estimate reach and qualitative content analysis of the messages was performed.Main Outcomes and MeasuresOutcome measures included categories of COVID-19 misinformation propagated, the number and traits of physicians engaged in misinformation propagation, and the type of online media channels used to propagate misinformation and potential reach.ResultsThe propagation of COVID-19 misinformation was attributed to 52 physicians in 28 different specialties across all regions of the country. General misinformation categories included vaccines, medication, masks, and other (ie, conspiracy theories). Forty-two physicians (80.8%) posted vaccine misinformation, 40 (76.9%) propagated information in more than 1 category, and 20 (38.5%) posted misinformation on 5 or more platforms. Major themes identified included (1) disputing vaccine safety and effectiveness, (2) promoting medical treatments lacking scientific evidence and/or US Food and Drug Administration approval, (3) disputing mask-wearing effectiveness, and (4) other (unsubstantiated claims, eg, virus origin, government lies, and other conspiracy theories).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this mixed-methods study of US physician propagation of COVID-19 misinformation on social media, results suggest widespread, inaccurate, and potentially harmful assertions made by physicians across the country who represented a range of subspecialties. Further research is needed to assess the extent of the potential harms associated with physician propagation of misinformation, the motivations for these behaviors, and potential legal and professional recourse to improve accountability for misinformation propagation.

Comparison of COVID-19 and Influenza-Related Outcomes in the United States during Fall-Winter 2022-2023

“…In addition, clear evidence-based recommendations and consistent messaging on vaccines are essential to increase vaccine confidence among HCPs and patients. 34–36…”

“…In addition, clear evidence-based recommendations and consistent messaging on vaccines are essential to increase vaccine confidence among HCPs and patients. [34][35][36] The clinical understanding of the viral mutations, at-risk population, long-term complications, and optimal vaccine schedule for COVID- The 6-month study period used in this analysis did not capture the full 2022-2023 influenza season as defined by the CDC. However, the peak influenza period is captured in this analysis, and the exclusion of the tail end of the season should not be expected to significantly change the results.…”

Dissemination of clinical and scientific practice through social media: a SIAARTI consensus-based document

“…This should also be seen as a milestone in evidence dissemination, since it helps overcoming barriers that may preclude access to scientific sources (i.e., subscription-based access to journal articles, clinical burden that may reduce time for scientific update). On the other hand, SoMe may favor the spread of uncontrolled medical practices and information, bypassing the gentlemen ’ s agreement [ 6 ]. This occurs through direct contact between healthcare professionals producing “information” and members of the public [ 7 ].…”

JAMA Network Open—The Year in Review, 2023

“…We firmly believe that much of the success of JAMA Network Open is due to an unwavering commitment to the journal’s mission, “to improve health, health care, and health equity worldwide through open access dissemination of high quality, innovative, general medical research and commentary by and for a broad range of clinicians, researchers, policy makers, and public health and health care leaders.” In keeping with this charge, JAMA Network Open covers a remarkably broad range of topics on health and health care of worldwide importance and interest . For example, as seen in the Table, popular studies published in 2023 focused on clinical topics such as alcohol intake, sleep patterns, and stroke …”

“…We continue to receive nearly 3000 submissions annually that are related to SARS-CoV-2, and this topic continues to be of great interest to our readers, as evidenced by the studies with the highest Altmetric scores (Table). Our focus has evolved along with the pandemic.…”