Background: In recent years, medical journals have emphasized the increasingly critical role that social media plays in the dissemination of public health information and disease prevention guidelines. However, platforms such as Facebook and Twitter continue to pose unique challenges for clinical health care providers and public health officials alike. In order to effectively communicate during public health emergencies, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, it is increasingly critical for health care providers and public health officials to understand how patients gather health-related information on the internet and adjudicate the merits of such information. Objective: With that goal in mind, we conducted a survey of 1003 US-based adults to better understand how health consumers have used social media to learn and stay informed about the COVID-19 pandemic, the extent to which they have relied on credible scientific information sources, and how they have gone about fact-checking pandemic-related information. Methods: A web-based survey was conducted with a sample that was purchased through an industry-leading market research provider. The results were reported with a 95% confidence level and a margin of error of 3. Participants included 1003 US-based adults (aged ≥18 years). Participants were selected via a stratified quota sampling approach to ensure that the sample was representative of the US population. Balanced quotas were determined (by region of the country) for gender, age, race, and ethnicity. Results: The results showed a heavy reliance on social media during the COVID-19 pandemic; more than three-quarters of respondents (762/1003, 76%) reported that they have relied on social media at least “a little,” and 59.2% (594/1003) of respondents indicated that they read information about COVID-19 on social media at least once per week. According to the findings, most social media users (638/1003, 63.6%) were unlikely to fact-check what they see on the internet with a health professional, despite the high levels of mistrust in the accuracy of COVID-19–related information on social media. We also found a greater likelihood of undergoing vaccination among those following more credible scientific sources on social media during the pandemic (χ216=50.790; φ=0.258; P<.001). Conclusions: The findings suggest that health professionals will need to be both strategic and proactive when engaging with health consumers on social media if they hope to counteract the deleterious effects of misinformation and disinformation. Effective training, institutional support, and proactive collaboration can help health professionals adapt to the evolving patterns of health information seeking.

Clinical informatics, decision support for health professionals, electronic health records, and ehealth infrastructures.

Journal of Medical Internet Research - International Scientific Journal for Medical Research, Information and Communication on the Internet #Preprint #PeerReviewMe: Warning: This is a unreviewed preprint. Readers are warned that the document has not been peer-reviewed by expert/patient reviewers or an academic editor, may contain misleading claims, and is likely to undergo changes before final publication, if accepted, or may have been rejected/withdrawn. Readers with interest and expertise are encouraged to sign up as peer-reviewer, if the paper is within an open peer-review period. Please cite this preprint only for review purposes or for grant applications and CVs (if you are the author). n/a

The Health Level 7 (HL7) organization introduced the Information Sensitivity Policy Value Set with 45 sensitive data categories to facilitate the implementation of granular electronic consent technology. The goal is to allow patients to have control over the sharing of their sensitive medical records. This study represents the first attempt to explore physicians’ viewpoints on these categories. Twelve physicians participated in a survey, leading to revisions in 21 HL7 categories. They later classified 600 clinical data items through a second survey using the updated categories. Participants’ perspectives were documented, and data analysis included descriptive measures and heat maps. In the first survey, six participants suggested adding 19 new categories (e.g., personality disorder), and modifying 25 category definitions. Two new categories and sixteen revised category definitions were incorporated to support more patient-friendly content and inclusive language. Fifteen new category recommendations were addressed through a revision of category definitions (e.g., personality disorder described as a behavioral health condition). In the second survey, data categorizations led to recommendations for more categories from ten participants. Future revisions of the HL7 categories should incorporate physicians’ viewpoints, validate the categories using patient data or/and include patients’ perspectives, and develop patient-centric category specifications.