Search

As the global COVID-19 pandemic has been concurrently labelled an “infodemic,” researchers have sought to improve how the general public engages with information that is relevant, timely, and accurate. In this study, we provide an overview of the reasons why people engage and disengage with COVID-19 information. We use context-rich semi-structured interviews which invited participants to discuss online COVID-19-related content they encountered. This qualitative approach allows us to uncover subtle but important details of influences that drive online engagement. Participants both engaged and disengaged with content for individual and social reasons, with seven themes emerging connected to their engagement including actions in response to information, reasoning for engagement, content, motivating concerns, frequency of engagement with information, site of exposure, and given reason for not engaging. Many of these themes intersected and informed each other. Our findings suggest that researchers and public health communicators should approach engagement as an ecology of intersecting influences, both human and algorithmic, which change over time. This information could be potentially helpful to public health communicators who are trying to engage the public with the best information to keep them safe during the pandemic.

Objectives: This paper proposes an intervention into health misinformation that relies upon the health belief model as a means to bridge the risks associated with health misinformation and the impact on individual health, beyond the current recommendations for fact checking and information literacy. Study design: This is a short theoretical paper. Methods: N/A. Results: N/A. Conclusions: Misinformation researchers and public health practitioners and communicators can benefit using the infrastructures afforded by public health offices to mobilize the health belief model as a site for misinformation education.

A case of initial resuscitation of a patient with severe burns is described. Such patients can have hypotension and reduced organ perfusion for a number of reasons, and can remain in the emergency department for many hours while awaiting transfer to specialist centres. The case provides a comparison between resuscitation using traditional burns formulae and a relatively new and simple-to-use cardiac output (CO) monitor--the Vigileo monitor (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, California, USA). The case demonstrates that relying on fluid regimes alone can lead to insufficient resuscitation. We suggest that using technologies such as those mentioned in this article, which have the potential to be used in the emergency department, could improve the initial resuscitation of patients with burns.