Abstract
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. Twenty-six 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.
Author Summary Misinformation is increasingly seen as a danger to public health and society at large. In the case of COVID-19, it is associated with high levels of unnecessary death among the public. There have been many interventions proposed to counter misinformation, yet little taking a meta-analytical perspective. These interventions vary greatly and are not measured for effect in the same ways, making traditional comparisons difficult. Instead, we categorised the interventions by type and assessed them by impact, scalability, durability, and which groups of people and contexts in which they best work. With this information for each type of intervention, policymakers can then make packages of multiple interventions that best work in their circumstances. Although game-type interventions stood out from the rest, no one intervention seems capable of effectively countering misinformation by itself. Many interventions were found to work differently on different groups of people, which reaffirms suggestions by some authors that political ideology is relevant to how people respond to these interventions. In future research there is a need to more deeply investigate the role of politicisation in misinformation and interventions against it, as well as bringing in more theory to understand how these interventions function.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
N/A
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data underlying the results presented in the study are available from the databases listed in the methods section.
