Factors associated with COVID-19 misinformation rebuttal among college students: a descriptive study
Yi Shan,Meng Ji
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2023.1233414
2023-11-17
Abstract:Background: The deluge of COVID-19 misinformation makes people confused, and acting on such misinformation can kill, leading to the tragic outcome of death. This makes it necessary to identify significant factors associated with college students' susceptibility. Objective: This descriptive study sought to ascertain factors significantly associated with college students' susceptibility to online COVID-19 misinformation. Methods: To assess college students' susceptibility to COVID-19 misinformation, we first chose as independent variables some demographic information, some well-developed, validated literacy tools, and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 Items. Second, we selected as the dependent variable COVID-19 myths from some authoritative, official websites. Third, we integrated the independent and dependent variables into an online questionnaire. Fourth, we recruited students from Nantong University in China to participate in an online questionnaire survey. Finally, based on the data collected, we conducted quantitative and qualitative analyses to relate the independent variables to the dependent variable. Results: Five hundred forty-six students participated in the survey voluntarily, and all questionnaires they answered were valid. The participants had an average of 2.32 (SD = 0.99) years of higher education. They have a mean age of 20.44 (SD = 1.52) years. 434 (79.5%) of the 546 participants were females. The frequency of their Internet use averaged 3.91 (SD = 0.41), indicating that they logged onto the Internet almost every day. Their self-reported Internet skill was rated 3.79 (SD = 1.07), indicating that the participants rated their Internet skills as basically "good." The mean scores of the sub-constructs in the AAHLS were 6.14 (SD = 1.37) for functional health literacy, 5.10 (SD = 1.65) for communicative health literacy, and 11.13 (SD = 2.65) for critical health literacy. These mean scores indicated that the participants needed help to read health-related materials "sometimes," the frequency that they knew how to communicate effectively with professional health providers was between "often" and "sometimes," and the frequency that they were critical about health information was between "often" and "sometimes," respectively. The sum of their scores for eHealth literacy averaged 28.29 (SD = 5.31), showing that they had a relatively high eHealth literacy level. The mean score for each question in the GHNT was determined at 1.31 (SD = 0.46), 1.36 (SD = 0.48), 1.41 (SD = 0.49), 1.77 (SD = 0.42), 1.51 (SD = 0.50), and 1.54 (SD = 0.50), respectively. These mean scores showed that a high percentage of the participants answered the 6 questions wrongly, especially Questions 4-6. Similarly, participants performed unsatisfactorily in answering the 3 questions in the CRT, with a mean score of 1.75 (SD = 0.43), 1.55 (SD = 0.50), and 1.59 (SD = 0.49) for each question, respectively. In the PHQ-9, the participants reported that they never felt depressed or felt depressed only for 1-3 days in the past week. The mean score for myths 1-6 and 9-10 ranged from 1.15 (SD = 0.36) to 1.29 (SD = 0.46). This meant that the participants rated these myths false. However, most of the participants rated myths 7-8 true (1.54, SD = 0.50; 1.49, SD = 0.50), showing that they were highly susceptible to these 2 pieces of misinformation. Through data analysis via Logistic Regression (forward stepwise), we found that (1) at an average threshold of 0.5, Internet use frequency, functional health literacy, general health numeracy, reflective thinking tendency, and depression severity were significant predictors of susceptibility to misinformation for both male and female students, (2) at a higher threshold of 0.8, aggregated general health numeracy scores and functional health literacy scores, as well as depression severity were predictors of susceptibility to misinformation for both male and female students, (3) functional health literacy, general health literacy, and depression predicted resistance to misinformation for female students, and (4) internet use frequency and self-reported digital health literacy predicted resistance to misinformation for male students. Conclusion: We revealed the complexity, dynamics, and differences in age, gender, education, Internet exposure, communicative health literacy, and cognitive skills concerning college students' susceptibility to online COVID-19 misinformation. Hopefully, this study can provide valuable implications for counteracting COVID-19 misinformation among Chinese college students.