Background: An infodemic is an overflow of information of varying quality that surges across digital and physical environments during an acute public health event. It leads to confusion, risk-taking, and behaviors that can harm health and lead to erosion of trust in health authorities and public health responses. Owing to the global scale and high stakes of the health emergency, responding to the infodemic related to the pandemic is particularly urgent. Building on diverse research disciplines and expanding the discipline of infodemiology, more evidence-based interventions are needed to design infodemic management interventions and tools and implement them by health emergency responders. Objective: The World Health Organization organized the first global infodemiology conference, entirely online, during June and July 2020, with a follow-up process from August to October 2020, to review current multidisciplinary evidence, interventions, and practices that can be applied to the COVID-19 infodemic response. This resulted in the creation of a public health research agenda for managing infodemics. Methods: As part of the conference, a structured expert judgment synthesis method was used to formulate a public health research agenda. A total of 110 participants represented diverse scientific disciplines from over 35 countries and global public health implementing partners. The conference used a laddered discussion sprint methodology by rotating participant teams, and a managed follow-up process was used to assemble a research agenda based on the discussion and structured expert feedback. This resulted in a five-workstream frame of the research agenda for infodemic management and 166 suggested research questions. The participants then ranked the questions for feasibility and expected public health impact. The expert consensus was summarized in a public health research agenda that included a list of priority research questions. Results: The public health research agenda for infodemic management has five workstreams: (1) measuring and continuously monitoring the impact of infodemics during health emergencies; (2) detecting signals and understanding the spread and risk of infodemics; (3) responding and deploying interventions that mitigate and protect against infodemics and their harmful effects; (4) evaluating infodemic interventions and strengthening the resilience of individuals and communities to infodemics; and (5) promoting the development, adaptation, and application of interventions and toolkits for infodemic management. Each workstream identifies research questions and highlights 49 high priority research questions. Conclusions: Public health authorities need to develop, validate, implement, and adapt tools and interventions for managing infodemics in acute public health events in ways that are appropriate for their countries and contexts. Infodemiology provides a scientific foundation to make this possible. This research agenda proposes a structured framework for targeted investment for the scientific community, policy makers, implementing organizations, and other stakeholders to consider.

Background: An infodemic is excess information, including false or misleading information, that spreads in digital and physical environments during a public health emergency. The COVID-19 pandemic has been accompanied by an unprecedented global infodemic that has led to confusion about the benefits of medical and public health interventions, with substantial impact on risk-taking and health-seeking behaviors, eroding trust in health authorities and compromising the effectiveness of public health responses and policies. Standardized measures are needed to quantify the harmful impacts of the infodemic in a systematic and methodologically robust manner, as well as harmonizing highly divergent approaches currently explored for this purpose. This can serve as a foundation for a systematic, evidence-based approach to monitoring, identifying, and mitigating future infodemic harms in emergency preparedness and prevention. Objective: In this paper, we summarize the Fifth World Health Organization (WHO) Infodemic Management Conference structure, proceedings, outcomes, and proposed actions seeking to identify the interdisciplinary approaches and frameworks needed to enable the measurement of the burden of infodemics. Methods: An iterative human-centered design (HCD) approach and concept mapping were used to facilitate focused discussions and allow for the generation of actionable outcomes and recommendations. The discussions included 86 participants representing diverse scientific disciplines and health authorities from 28 countries across all WHO regions, along with observers from civil society and global public health–implementing partners. A thematic map capturing the concepts matching the key contributing factors to the public health burden of infodemics was used throughout the conference to frame and contextualize discussions. Five key areas for immediate action were identified. Results: The 5 key areas for the development of metrics to assess the burden of infodemics and associated interventions included (1) developing standardized definitions and ensuring the adoption thereof; (2) improving the map of concepts influencing the burden of infodemics; (3) conducting a review of evidence, tools, and data sources; (4) setting up a technical working group; and (5) addressing immediate priorities for postpandemic recovery and resilience building. The summary report consolidated group input toward a common vocabulary with standardized terms, concepts, study designs, measures, and tools to estimate the burden of infodemics and the effectiveness of infodemic management interventions. Conclusions: Standardizing measurement is the basis for documenting the burden of infodemics on health systems and population health during emergencies. Investment is needed into the development of practical, affordable, evidence-based, and systematic methods that are legally and ethically balanced for monitoring infodemics; generating diagnostics, infodemic insights, and recommendations; and developing interventions, action-oriented guidance, policies, support options, mechanisms, and tools for infodemic managers and emergency program managers.

Since 2014, the World Health Organization (WHO) member states have been annually reporting vaccine hesitancy reasons, using the WHO/UNICEF Joint Reporting Form (JRF). The Vaccine Hesitancy Matrix (VHM), developed by a WHO strategic advisory group of experts, can serve as an important tool to categorize vaccine hesitancy reasons reported in the JRF. We aimed to describe the reasons for vaccine hesitancy reported globally from 2014 to 2017 to ascertain trends over time and understand the comparability of using the VHM to classify hesitancy reasons from 2014 to 2016 based on previously published literature. We conducted a quantitative content analysis to code and categorize vaccine hesitancy reasons reported in the JRF from 2014 to 2017. Vaccine hesitancy trends were consistent from 2014 to 2017, where vaccine hesitancy reasons were mainly related to “individual and group level influences” (59%) followed by “contextual influences” (25%), and “vaccine- or vaccination-specific issues” (16%). Comparability of our approach to categorize vaccine hesitancy to the previously published JRF data showed that results were mostly but not entirely consistent. Major differences in categorizing vaccine hesitancy were noted between two specific reasons – “experience with past vaccination” (under “individual and group influences”) and “risk/benefit- scientific evidence” (under “vaccine and vaccination-specific issues”); this was usually due to lack of clear definitions in some sub-categories and generic responses reported in the JRF. The JRF hesitancy module may benefit from modifications to improve the data quality. Understanding global vaccine hesitancy is crucial and JRF can serve as an important tool, especially with the potential introduction of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Women's intra‐household bargaining power is an important determinant of child nutritional status, but there is limited evidence on how it relates to infant and young child feeding (IYCF) practices. We conducted a cross‐sectional analysis using 2012 baseline data from the impact evaluation of Suaahara, a multisectoral programme in Nepal, focusing on households with children 0–23 months (n = 1787). We examined if women's bargaining power was related to exposure to IYCF information and if exposure to IYCF information was in turn associated with improved IYCF practices: early initiation of breastfeeding, exclusive breastfeeding, minimum meal frequency and dietary diversity. Bargaining power consisted of four domains: (i) ownership and control of assets; (ii) social participation; (iii) workload; and (iv) household decision‐making control and were primarily measured using additive scales. We used generalized structural equation modelling to examine if exposure to IYCF information mediated the relationship between the bargaining domains and the four IYCF practices, separately. Social participation was positively associated with exposure to IYCF information (β = 0.266, P < .001), which in turn was related to early initiation (β = 0.241, P = .001). We obtained similar results for the relationship between social participation and dietary diversity. Decision‐making control was directly associated with exclusive breastfeeding (β = 0.350, P = .036). No domains were associated with minimum meal frequency. Different domains of women's bargaining power may relate to exposure to nutrition information and IYCF behaviours. Understanding specific domains of bargaining power is critical to developing interventions that can effectively address gender‐related issues that underlie child nutrition outcomes.

There is limited understanding of the potential impact of information sources on vaccination attitudes and behaviors in low-income countries. We examined how exposure to immunization information sources may be associated with vaccination uptake in Sierra Leone. In 2019, a household survey was conducted using multistage cluster sampling to randomly select 621 caregivers of children aged 12–23 months in 4 districts in Sierra Leone. We measured exposure to various sources of immunization information and 2 outcomes: (1) vaccination confidence using an aggregate score (from 12 Likert items, informed by previously validated scale) that was dichotomized into a binary variable; (2) uptake of the third dose of diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus-hepatitis B-Haemophilus influenzae type-b-pentavalent vaccine (penta-3) based on card record or through caregiver recall when card was unavailable. Associations between information sources and the outcomes were examined using modified Poisson regression with robust variance estimator. Weighted estimate for penta-3 uptake was 81% (75.2%–85.5%). The likelihood of uptake of penta-3 was significantly greater when caregiver received information from health facilities (adjusted prevalence ratio [aPR]=1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.1, 1.5), faith leaders (aPR=1.16, 95% CI=1.1, 1.3), and community health workers (aPR=1.13, 95% CI=1.003, 1.3). Exposure to greater number of information sources was associated with high penta-3 uptake (aPR=1.05, 95% CI=1.02, 1.1). Immunization information received during health facility visits and through engagement with religious leaders may enhance vaccination uptake. Assessments to understand context-specific information dynamics should be prioritized in optimizing immunization outcomes.

Background: Effective online communication about the environmental risk factors of breast cancer is essential because of the multitude of environmental exposures and debate regarding the conclusiveness of scientific evidence. Purpose: The aim of this study was to assess the content, readability, and cultural sensitivity of online resources focused on the environmental risks factors of breast cancer. Methods: A purposive sample of webpages focused on environmental risk factors of breast cancer was obtained through a Google search using 17 search terms. Using nonparametric statistics, we assessed the content, readability, and cultural appropriateness of 235 webpages. Results: Eighty-two percent of webpages referred to research studies in their content. For the majority of sites, readability was at a high school reading grade level. Webpages were not explicitly intended for specific racial/ethnic groups. Discussion: Technical language and non-culturally specific messages may hinder users’ attention to and comprehension of online breast cancer information. Additional research is needed to examine in-depth the accuracy of this online content. Translation to Health Education Practice: Findings suggest that collaborations between scientists, Health Educators, website designers/media professionals, and the community will be critical to the delivery of accurate, up-to-date, plain-language, and culturally sensitive information about breast cancer and the environment.