IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/pal/palcom/v9y2022i1d10.1057_s41599-022-01293-3.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The usefulness of a checklist approach-based confirmation scheme in identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information: a case study in Japan

Author

Listed:
  • Nanae Tanemura

    (National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition)

  • Tsuyoshi Chiba

    (National Institutes of Biomedical Innovation, Health and Nutrition)

Abstract

Consumers are increasingly able to easily access health information online about food products. However, consumers have difficulty identifying reliable health information from diverse sources along with information about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic because the inundation of information (both true and false) overwhelm consumers. We investigated the usefulness of a checklist confirmation scheme for identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information. Data were collected from June 30–July 1, 2021. First, we measured 700 participants’ baseline health literacy levels by having them read unreliable health information about the efficacy of green tea intake in preventing COVID-19 based on the results of animal experimentation. Second, participants read an explanation with a five-step flowchart of how to identify reliable health information. Thereafter, we remeasured participants’ health literacy levels. To identify the factors hindering the effect of the confirmation scheme, a logistic regression analysis was performed to calculate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Overall, 77.9% (293/376) of those with low health literacy levels at baseline still had low literacy after the intervention. The factor that hindered the confirmation scheme’s usefulness was benefit perceptions of food ingredients (OR: 0.493; 95% CI: 0.252–0.966). Consumers with higher benefit perceptions of a target product faced more difficulties using the confirmation scheme effectively. Therefore, the most effective strategies involve filtering information at the organizational level rather than the individual level, which should help consumers correctly identify misinformation concerning food and health and promote accurate decision-making.

Suggested Citation

  • Nanae Tanemura & Tsuyoshi Chiba, 2022. "The usefulness of a checklist approach-based confirmation scheme in identifying unreliable COVID-19-related health information: a case study in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-7, December.
  • Handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01293-3
    DOI: 10.1057/s41599-022-01293-3
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1057/s41599-022-01293-3
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1057/s41599-022-01293-3?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yan Zhang & Yalin Sun & Bo Xie, 2015. "Quality of health information for consumers on the web: A systematic review of indicators, criteria, tools, and evaluation results," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(10), pages 2071-2084, October.
    2. C. Nadine Wathen & Jacquelyn Burkell, 2002. "Believe it or not: Factors influencing credibility on the Web," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 53(2), pages 134-144.
    3. Lingnan He & Yue Chen & Xiling Xiong & Xiqian Zou & Kaisheng Lai, 2021. "Does Science Literacy Guarantee Resistance to Health Rumors? The Moderating Effect of Self-Efficacy of Science Literacy in the Relationship between Science Literacy and Rumor Belief," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(5), pages 1-10, February.
    4. Miriam J. Metzger, 2007. "Making sense of credibility on the Web: Models for evaluating online information and recommendations for future research," Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 58(13), pages 2078-2091, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yan Zhang & Jiaying Liu & Shijie Song, 2023. "The design and evaluation of a nudge‐based interface to facilitate consumers' evaluation of online health information credibility," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 74(7), pages 828-845, July.
    2. Wonchan Choi, 2020. "Older adultsʼ credibility assessment of online health information: An exploratory study using an extended typology of web credibility," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 71(11), pages 1295-1307, November.
    3. Payal S. Kapoor & K.R. Jayasimha & Ashish Sadh, 2013. "Brand-related, Consumer to Consumer, Communication via Social Media," IIM Kozhikode Society & Management Review, , vol. 2(1), pages 43-59, January.
    4. Leo-Paul Dana & Demetris Vrontis & Ranjan Chaudhuri & Sheshadri Chatterjee, 2023. "Entrepreneurship Strategy through Social Commerce Platform: An Empirical Approach Using Contagion Theory and Information Adoption Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 15(16), pages 1-16, August.
    5. Yan Zhang & Ciaran B. Trace, 2022. "The quality of health and wellness self‐tracking data: A consumer perspective," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 73(6), pages 879-891, June.
    6. Carlos Lamela-Orcasitas & Jesús García-Madariaga, 2023. "How to really quantify the economic value of customer information in corporate databases," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-13, December.
    7. Sheng Tun Li & Thuong Thi Pham & Hui Chi Chuang & Zhi-Wei Wang, 2016. "Does reliable information matter? Towards a trustworthy co-created recommendation model by mining unboxing reviews," Information Systems and e-Business Management, Springer, vol. 14(1), pages 71-99, February.
    8. Chakravarty, Anindita & Liu, Yong & Mazumdar, Tridib, 2010. "The Differential Effects of Online Word-of-Mouth and Critics' Reviews on Pre-release Movie Evaluation," Journal of Interactive Marketing, Elsevier, vol. 24(3), pages 185-197.
    9. Almasri Ammar, 2022. "The Users’ Behavioral Intention to use Mobile Health-Tech Application to Prevent the Spreading of Coronavirus," South East European Journal of Economics and Business, Sciendo, vol. 17(2), pages 18-33, December.
    10. Uchendu Eugene Chigbu & Sulaiman Olusegun Atiku & Cherley C. Du Plessis, 2023. "The Science of Literature Reviews: Searching, Identifying, Selecting, and Synthesising," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(1), pages 1-16, January.
    11. Hung-Pin Shih & Pei-Chen Sung, 2021. "Addressing the Review-Based Learning and Private Information Approaches to Foster Platform Continuance," Information Systems Frontiers, Springer, vol. 23(3), pages 649-661, June.
    12. Jehad Imlawi, 2017. "E-WOM Adoption and Sharing Behavior in Social Network Sites: The Impact of Engagement in SNSs," International Business Research, Canadian Center of Science and Education, vol. 10(6), pages 87-97, June.
    13. Kostagiolas, Petros & Korfiatis, Nikolaos & Kourouthanasis, Panos & Alexias, Georgios, 2014. "Work-related factors influencing doctors search behaviors and trust toward medical information resources," International Journal of Information Management, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 80-88.
    14. Russell Miller & Nicholas Doria-Anderson & Akira Shibanuma & Jennifer Lisa Sakamoto & Aya Yumino & Masamine Jimba, 2021. "Evaluating Local Multilingual Health Care Information Environments on the Internet: A Pilot Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(13), pages 1-12, June.
    15. Choi-Meng Leong & Alexa Min-Wei Loi & Steve Woon, 2022. "The influence of social media eWOM information on purchase intention," Journal of Marketing Analytics, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(2), pages 145-157, June.
    16. Sandra Salm & Judith Mollenhauer & Carolin Hornbach & Natalia Cecon & Antje Dresen & Stefanie Houwaart & Anna Arning & Andrea Göttel & Kathrin Schwickerath & Holger Pfaff & Nadine Scholten & Theresia , 2021. "Participatory Development and Preliminary Psychometric Properties of the User-Friendly Patient Information Material Checklist (UPIM-Check)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(16), pages 1-16, August.
    17. Triki, Anis, 2019. "Examining the effect of deception detection decision aids on investors' perceptions of disclosure credibility and willingness to invest," International Journal of Accounting Information Systems, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 1-15.
    18. Ruiz-Mafe, Carla & Chatzipanagiotou, Kalliopi & Curras-Perez, Rafael, 2018. "The role of emotions and conflicting online reviews on consumers' purchase intentions," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 89(C), pages 336-344.
    19. Lifang Peng & Qinyu Liao & Xiaorong Wang & Xuanfang He, 2016. "Factors affecting female user information adoption: an empirical investigation on fashion shopping guide websites," Electronic Commerce Research, Springer, vol. 16(2), pages 145-169, June.
    20. Oducado, Ryan Michael F. & Moralista, Rome B., 2020. "Filipino Nursing Students' eHealth Literacy and Criteria Used for Selection of Health Websites," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 23(13B), pages 231-343.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:palcom:v:9:y:2022:i:1:d:10.1057_s41599-022-01293-3. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.nature.com/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.