Quality information and fake news on Covid-19 and immunization among adolescents: a qualitative analysis in school settings

Quality information and fake news on Covid-19 and immunization among adolescents: a qualitative analysis in school settings

Authors

  • Fabiana Nuccetelli
  • Valeria Gabellone
  • Elisa Gabrielli
  • Pier Luigi Lopalco

Keywords:

Fake news, Covid-19, immunization, adolescents

Abstract

Background. Correct information is an essential tool to guide thoughts, attitudes, daily choices or more important decisions such as those regarding health. Today, a huge amount of information sources and media is available. Increasing possibilities of obtaining data also require understanding and positioning skills, particularly the ability to navigate the ocean of information and to choose what is best without becoming overwhelmed.
Objective. In the present study, focus group methodology has been used as a survey instrument in a school setting in order to study the knowledge, preconceptions, and attitudes of students toward vaccination practice, to promote favourable and knowledgeable attitudes about vaccination and counteract the spread of fake news.
Material and methods. In an educational institution in Apulia in March 2023, 2 focus group sessions were conducted with students as part of an educational project. The selected sample of 23 students was divided into two groups consisting of 12 and 11 participants each, respectively, chosen through the probabilistic method. The knowledge and attitude baseline was assessed through a structured questionnaire at the start of the day. Then, before the focus group sessions, the first group (A) was exposed to an informative video conducted by an expert on the topic of vaccination and fake news, while the second group (B) attended a frontal lesson on the same issues. The guiding questions that the moderators considered in both groups for the topic of vaccination investigated the importance, the usefulness of vaccines, and the trust in political authorities.
Results. The responses to the initial questionnaire revealed high variability among the two groups, although they were randomly selected. Transcripts of the dialogues were categorized by ATLAS.ti into 204 total codes and 87 categories, then combined to form increasingly generic categories that were united by related themes. It was developed in a specific model of favouring and hindering factors divided into 4 thematic domains specially adapted to the school context: perception of disease risk, emotional aspects, beliefs about the vaccine, and attitudes toward fake news.
Discussion. The category “Fake News” with 97 mentions turns out to be the most discussed by students within all the explored domains. Adolescents have a greater attitude to be overcome by conspiracy theories, probably because they are more exposed to online news. We could detect a generalised sense of confusion with respect to the communication of the pandemic period that emphasised, in many of them, prior perplexities. Public health policies, criticised by the participants, led them to develop a sceptical and conspiratorial attitude toward the authorities, claiming economic interests behind some management choices. “Emotions,” with 63 quotes, confirmed the strong impact of the emotional sphere, multifaceted and diverse, on adolescents’ personal experience during the pandemic.
Conclusions. The results suggest that a single intervention (video or lesson) is not able to change attitudes and thinking tendencies of the adolescents examined. In addition, the leader figure present in both groups, was found to influence, in both study conditions (group A and group B), students’ opinions, especially on the issue of fake news, more than a short-term intervention.

References

1. Ministero della Salute. Nuovo coronavirus: fake news. 2020. Available from: https://www.salute.gov.it/portale/nuovo.coronavirus/archivioFakeNewsNuovoCoronavirus.jsp?lingua=italiano&area=nuovocoronavirus&fakeNewsArchivio.page=7 [Last accessed: 2024 Jun 18].

2. Wong LP. Focus group discussion: a tool for health and medical research. Singapore Med J. 2008 Mar;49(3):256-60; quiz 261. PMID: 18363011.

3. Trinchero R. I metodi della ricerca educativa. Roma-Bari: Laterza; 2009, p. 101.

4. Hobbs J, Kittler A, Fox S, Middleton B, Bates DW. Communicating health information to an alarmed public facing a threat such as a bioterrorist attack. J Health Commun. 2004 Jan-Feb;9(1):67-71. doi: 10.1080/10810730490271638. PMID: 14761834.

5. Braun V, Clarke V. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006 Jan;3(2):77-101. doi: 10.1191/1478088706qp063oa.

6. Kalpokas N, Radivojevic I. Bridging the Gap Between Methodology and Qualitative Data Analysis Software: A Practical Guide for Educators and Qualitative Researchers. Sociological Research Online. 2022 Jun;27(2):313-341. doi: 10.1177/13607804211003579.

7. NEWSGARD: Le principali bufale sul vaccino per il COVID-19 che circolano in rete. 2021. Available from: https://www.newsguardtech.com/it/special-reports/special-report-le-principali-bufale-sul-vaccino-per-il-covid-19/ [Last accessed: 2024 Jun 18].

8. Greškovičová K, Masaryk R, Synak N, Čavojová V. Superlatives, clickbaits, appeals to authority, poor grammar, or boldface: Is editorial style related to the credibility of online health messages? Front Psychol. 2022 Aug 29;13:940903. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.940903. PMID: 36106046; PMCID: PMC9465483.

9. Hartwig M, Bond CF, Jr. Lie Detection from Multiple Cues: A Meta‐analysis. Appl Cognitive Psychol. 2014 Sep-Oct;28(5):661-676. doi: 10.1002/acp.3052.

10. Dutta R, Buragohain L, Borah P. Analysis of codon usage of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) and its adaptability in dogs. Virus Res. 2020 Oct 15;288:198113. doi: 10.1016/j.virusres.2020.198113. Epub 2020 Aug 7. PMID: 32771430; PMCID: PMC7410794.

11. Goobie GC, Guler SA, Johannson KA, Fisher JH, Ryerson CJ. YouTube Videos as a Source of Misinformation on Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2019 May;16(5):572-579. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201809-644-OC. PMID: 30608877.

12. Loeb S, Taylor J, Borin JF, Mihalcea R, Perez-Rosas V, Byrne N, et al. Fake News: Spread of Misinformation about Urological Conditions on Social Media. Eur Urol Focus. 2020 May 15;6(3):437-439. doi: 10.1016/j.euf.2019.11.011. Epub 2019 Dec 23. PMID: 31874796.

13. Mueller SM, Jungo P, Cajacob L, Schwegler S, Itin P, Brandt O. The Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Non-Sense: Cross-Sectional Study on the Quality of Psoriasis-Related Videos on YouTube and Their Reception by Health Seekers. J Med Internet Res. 2019 Jan 16;21(1):e11935. doi: 10.2196/11935. PMID: 30664460; PMCID: PMC6357908.

14. Mueller SM, Hongler VNS, Jungo P, Cajacob L, Schwegler S, Steveling EH, et al. Fiction, Falsehoods, and Few Facts: Cross-Sectional Study on the Content-Related Quality of Atopic Eczema-Related Videos on YouTube. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Apr 24;22(4):e15599. doi: 10.2196/15599. PMID: 32329744; PMCID: PMC7210495.

15. Jolley D, Douglas KM. The social consequences of conspiracism: Exposure to conspiracy theories decreases intentions to engage in politics and to reduce one’s carbon footprint. Br J Psychol. 2014 Feb;105(1):35-56. doi: 10.1111/bjop.12018. Epub 2013 Jan 4. PMID: 24387095.

16. Hornsey MJ, Harris EA, Kelly S, Fielding. The Psychological Roots of Anti-Vaccination Attitudes: A 24-Nation Investigation. University of Queensland, 2018: 310-31.

17. Caserotti M, Girardi P, Rubaltelli E, Tasso A, Lotto L, Gavaruzzi T. Associations of COVID-19 risk perception with vaccine hesitancy over time for Italian residents. Soc Sci Med. 2021 Mar;272:113688. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113688. Epub 2021 Jan 7. PMID: 33485215; PMCID: PMC7788320.

18. Dryhurst S, Schneider CR, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, van der Bles AM, et al. Risk perceptions of COVID-19 around the world. J Risk Res. 2020; 23(7-8):994-1006. https://doi.org/10.1080/13669877.2020.1758193.

19. Wise T, Zbozinek TD, Michelini G, Hagan CC, Mobbs D. Changes in risk perception and self-reported protective behaviour during the first week of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. R Soc Open Sci. 2020 Sep 16;7(9):200742. doi: 10.1098/rsos.200742. PMID: 33047037; PMCID: PMC7540790.

20. Haslam SA, Reicher SD, Platow MJ. The New Psychology of Leadership: Identity, Influence and Power. Psychology Press; 2010. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203833896.

21. Ellemers N, Pagliaro S, Barreto M. Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2013;24(1):160-193. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2013.841490.

22. Di Nubila R. Dal gruppo al gruppo di lavoro. Lecce: Pensa Multimedia; 2008.

Downloads

Published

2025-04-30

Issue

Section

Original research

How to Cite

1.
Nuccetelli F, Gabellone V, Gabrielli E, Lopalco PL. Quality information and fake news on Covid-19 and immunization among adolescents: a qualitative analysis in school settings. Ann Ig [Internet]. 2025 Apr. 30 [cited 2025 Oct. 21];37(2):204-1. Available from: https://mail.mattioli1885journals.com/index.php/annali-igiene/article/view/17387