The debate about how to combat misinformation on social media is more relevant than ever. We’ve seen misinformation about medical conditions spreading along with COVID and political misinformation affecting the outcome of elections, as well as national referenda.
Experts place the responsibility for stopping misinformation primarily on three groups: users of social media, government regulators, and social media platforms.
Tips to social media users include educating yourself on the topic and being aware the tactics used by misinformation spreaders. Government agencies are encouraged to work together to regulate and stop the spread of misinformation.
All of these strategies rely on content that we can identify as “reliable” in social media. Our new study , just published in The Journal of Health Communication, shows that reliable content is hard to find. Researchers and subject matter specialists struggled to find the evidence behind the social media posts they analysed.
We have created new guidelines based on our findings to help experts create engaging posts that clearly communicate the evidence behind them.
Read more: Misinformation, disinformation and hoaxes: What’s the difference?
What did our study find?
Between September 2018 and September 2019, we collected and analysed 300 X (formerly Twitter posts) related to mental health research from two major Australian mental health organisations. This timeframe was chosen to avoid any influence from recent major events such as the Australian bushfires starting in November 2019 or the COVID-19 Pandemic starting in March 2020.
We evaluated the written content of each post. We also looked at whether it contained hashtags, mentions or hyperlinks. Finally, we checked whether the source was evidence-based, such as an article from a peer reviewed journal, a conference presentation, clinical treatment guidelines, etc.
It was difficult to establish with certainty the source of the information in the posts. Only 56% of the times did our team agree on whether or not a post was based on evidence. These odds are no better than a flip of a coin.
How can we expect others to be able to identify the evidence-based content when people with years’ worth of relevant training are unable?
Fake X posts that communicate mental health research, where the evidence is not clearly communicated. Erin Madden et al.
The source of most posts was not clear, even though some posts seemed to be based on evidence (such as a researcher commenting about their field of expertise).
It raises questions regarding the difference between “poor-quality information” and misinformation. The latter is when even those with a background in the field are unable to recognise the level of evidence that supports a particular post.
Other examples of fake X-posts on mental health research, where the evidence basis of the information was not clearly communicated. Erin Madden et al.
Some posts included links to sources that are based on evidence, like peer-reviewed articles, but most only contained expert opinions, such news articles. Users would have to do extra work in order to judge the reliability of this content. They should read resources carefully and follow up on sources.
Social media users are unlikely to be able to comply with this request, particularly when peer-reviewed resources use complex technical language and require payment for access.
Read more: Removing author fees can help open access journals make research available to everyone
How can researchers communicate evidence-based content?
There is a strong push for academics to make their research accessible to the public but little guidance on how to balance engagement with evidence-based knowledge.
In our study, one of the goals was to develop simple guidelines that are evidence-based for researchers on how to effectively distribute mental health research through X. We found, for example, that researchers could boost engagement by highlighting the specific group of people the research is aimed at (for instance LBGTIQA+ and culturally diverse communities), and by using videos and images.
Our guidelines encourage our experts to create engaging, informative content that clearly communicates the “what”, “where”, and “whom” of the information.