Evidence and gap map of infodemic management interventions in emergencies: a case of COVID-19

BACKGROUND: Because infodemic management (IM) is an evolving field that is bridging science into practice, it is often conducted in the field in an ad-hoc manner, focusing on implementation to address immediate challenges, and is less evaluated or reported in the scientific literature. This project used the Evidence and Gap Map (EGM) as a tool to provide an overview of investments in research and evidence for IM interventions. METHODS: A WHO working group advised development of protocol and of taxonomy of IM interventions and outcome measures based on literature review and expert discussion. Search was conducted on electronic databases and grey literature. Screening/coding of the studies was carried out independently by reviewers in two stages: the title and abstract and the full-text screening stage. Data extraction/critical appraisal was carried out for the included studies. RESULTS: 983 studies were included from 29,117 search records. Among impact studies that measured and reported outcomes, the reported interventions were on ‘science & health communication’ (n = 30), ‘education & training’ (n = 30), and ‘engagement’ (n = 10). ‘Individual knowledge, attitude and behaviors’ was the most frequently measured outcome. In descriptive studies not measuring outcomes, majority reported an intervention of ‘monitoring/detection of narratives, questions, concerns, and misinformation in the information ecosystem’ (580 studies), by ‘science + health communication’ (n = 258), ‘education + training’ (n = 86), ‘engagement’ (n = 86) and ‘laws, regulation + ethics’ (n = 60). CONCLUSIONS: The EGM reviewed the evidence base on IM interventions. The analysis shows scarcity of impact evaluation studies in this area. Moreover, the map reflects concentrations of research in social media analytics studies, model studies for misinformation detection, individual level interventions. Major gaps exist in systems level interventions that address the information environment, and in broader impact measures. KEY MESSAGES: • Research funders should prioritize impact evaluation studies for systemic interventions to address infodemic to support solutions in design and implementation of such complex studies. • More research on infodemic management interventions is needed in LMICs and at health system level.