Background: The COVID-19 pandemic was characterized by an abundance of information, some of it reliable and some of it misinformation. Evidence-based data on the impact of misinformation on attitudes and behaviours remains limited. Studies indicate that older adults are more likely to embrace and disseminate misinformation than other population groups, making them vulnerable to misinformation. The purpose of this article is to explore the effects of misinformation and information overload on older adults, and to present the management strategies put in place to deal with such effects, in the context of COVID-19.Methods: A qualitative exploratory approach was adopted to conduct this research. A total of 36 semi-structured interviews were conducted with older adults living in Quebec, Canada. The interviews were fully transcribed and subjected to a thematic content analysis.Results: Participants said they could easily spot misinformation online. Despite this, misinformation and its treatment by the media could generate fear, stress and anxiety. Moreover, the polarization induced by misinformation resulted in tensions and even friendship breakdowns. Participants also denounced the information overload produced largely by the media. To this end, the participants set up information routines targeting the sources of information and the times at which they consulted the information.Conclusions: This article questions the concept of vulnerability to misinformation by highlighting older adults’ agency in managing misinformation and information overload. Furthermore, this study invites us to rethink communication strategies by distinguishing between information overload and misinformation.

Vaccination coverage needs to reach more than 80% to resolve the COVID-19 pandemic, but vaccine hesitancy, fuelled by misinformation, may jeopardize this goal. Unvaccinated older adults are not onl...

Even if vaccination is often described as one of the great achievements of public health, results of recent studies have shown that parental acceptance of vaccination is eroding. Health providers’ knowledge and attitudes about vaccines are important determinants of their own vaccine uptake, their intention to recommend vaccines to patients and the vaccine uptake of their patients. The purpose of this article is to compare how midwives and physicians address vaccination with parents during pregnancy and in postpartum visits. Thirty semi-structured interviews were conducted with midwives and physicians practicing in the province of Quebec, Canada. Results of our analysis have shown that physicians adopt an “education-information” stance when discussing vaccination with parents in the attempt to “convince” parents to vaccinate. In contrast, midwives adopted a neutral stance and gave information on the pros and cons of vaccination to parents while leaving the final decision up to them. Findings of this study highlight the fact that physicians and midwives have different views regarding their role and responsibilities concerning vaccination. It may be that neither of these approaches is optimal in promoting vaccination uptake.

It is unclear how to effectively protect healthcare workers’ mental health during infectious disease epidemics. Targeting the occupational determinants of stress may hold more promise than individual stress management, which has received more focus. Through a systematic review of the 2000–2021 English- and French-language scientific literature, we evaluated the effectiveness of organizational and psychosocial work environment interventions to protect healthcare workers’ mental health in an epidemic/pandemic context. Evidence from medium- and high-quality studies was synthesized using GRADE. Among 1604 unique search results, 41 studies were deemed relevant, yielding 34 low-quality and seven medium-quality studies. The latter reported on promising multi-component prevention programs that combined staffing adjustments, work shift arrangements, enhanced infection prevention and control, recognition of workers’ efforts, psychological and/or logistic support during lockdowns (e.g., accommodation). Our confidence in the effectiveness of reviewed interventions is low to very low, however, owing to methodological limitations. We highlight gaps in the reporting of intervention process and context elements and discuss theory and implementation failure as possible explanations for results. We conclude by urging authors of future studies to include and document detailed risk assessments of the work environment, involve workers in solution design and implementation and consider how this process can be adapted during an emergency.