Misinformation hinders the impact of public health initiatives. Efforts to counter misinformation likely do not consider the full range of factors known to affect how individuals make decisions and act on them. Implementation science tools and concepts can facilitate the development of more effective interventions against health misinformation by leveraging advances in behavior specification, uptake of evidence, and theory-guided development and evaluation of complex interventions. We conducted a scoping review of misinformation literature reviews to document whether and how important concepts from implementation science have already informed the study of misinformation. Of 90 included reviews, the most frequently identified implementation science concepts were consideration of mechanisms driving misinformation (78%) and ways to intervene on, reduce, avoid, or circumvent it (71%). Other implementation science concepts were discussed much less frequently, such as tailoring strategies to the relevant context (9%) or public involvement in intervention development (9%). Less than half of reviews (47%) were guided by any theory, model, or framework. Among the 26 reviews that cited existing theories, most used theory narratively (62%) or only mentioned/cited the theory (19%), rather than using theory explicitly to interpret results (15%) or to inform data extraction (12%). Despite considerable research and many summaries of how to intervene against health misinformation, there has been relatively little consideration of many important advances in the science of health care implementation. This review identifies key areas from implementation science that might be useful to support future research into designing effective misinformation interventions.
AgarwalN. K.AlsaeediF. (2021). Creation, dissemination and mitigation: Toward a disinformation behavior framework and model. Aslib Journal of Information Management, 73(5), 639–658. https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-01-2021-0034
ArkseyH.O’MalleyL. (2005). Scoping studies: Towards a methodological framework. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 8(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/1364557032000119616
4.
AtkinsL.FrancisJ.IslamR.O’ConnorD.PateyA.IversN.FoyR.DuncanE. M.ColquhounH.GrimshawJ. M.LawtonR.MichieS. (2017). A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Science, 12(1), 77. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
5.
BalakrishnanV.NgW. Z.SooM. C.HanG. J.LeeC. J. (2022). Infodemic and fake news—A comprehensive overview of its global magnitude during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2021: A scoping review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 78, 103144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijdrr.2022.103144
6.
BangC.BrehautJ. C.CarrollK.MistryN. (2023). The use of key implementation science concepts in the study of misinformation: A scoping review protocol. Open Science Framework. https://osf.io/s4n5w
7.
BrehautJ. C.ColquhounH. L.EvaK. W.CarrollK.SalesA.MichieS.IversN.GrimshawJ. M. (2016). Practice feedback interventions: 15 suggestions for optimizing effectiveness. Annals of Internal Medicine, 164(6), 435–441. https://doi.org/10.7326/m15-2248
CaceresM. M. F.SosaJ. P.LawrenceJ. A.SestacovschiC.Tidd-JohnsonA.Ui RasoolM. H.GadamidiV. K.OzairS.PandavK.Cuevas-LouC.ParrishM.RodriguezI.FernandezJ. P. (2022). The impact of misinformation on the COVID-19 pandemic. AIMS Public Health, 9(2), 262–277. https://doi.org/10.3934/PUBLICHEALTH.2022018
10.
CaledD.SilvaM. J. (2022). Digital media and misinformation: An outlook on multidisciplinary strategies against manipulation. Journal of Computational Social Science, 5(1), 123–159. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42001-021-00118-8
11.
CatlowJ.Bhardwaj-GoslingR.SharpL.RutterM. D.SniehottaF. F. (2022). Using a dark logic model to explore adverse effects in audit and feedback: A qualitative study of gaming in colonoscopy. BMJ Quality & Safety, 31(10), 704–715. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2021-013588
12.
ChigwedereP.SeageG. R.III.GruskinS.LeeT. H.EssexM. (2008). Estimating the lost benefits of antiretroviral drug use in South Africa. Journal of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndromes, 49(4), 410–415. https://doi.org/10.1097/qai.0b013e31818a6cd5
13.
ChipetaE. K.ChimwazaW.Kalilani-PhiriL. (2010). Contraceptive knowledge, beliefs and attitudes in rural Malawi: Misinformation, misbeliefs and misperceptions. Malawi Medical Journal, 22(2), 38–41.
14.
ChongS. K.AliS. H.ÐoànL. N.YiS. S.Trinh-ShevrinC.KwonS. C. (2022). Social media use and misinformation among Asian Americans during COVID-19. Frontiers in Public Health, 9, Article 764681. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2021.764681
15.
ChowdhuryN.KhalidA.TurinT. C. (2021). Understanding misinformation infodemic during public health emergencies due to large-scale disease outbreaks: A rapid review. Journal of Public Health, 31, 553–573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-021-01565-3
16.
ChrisB.FarahJ.Melendez-TorresG. J.StevenC. (2015). “Dark logic”: Theorising the harmful consequences of public health interventions. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 69(1), 95–98. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech-2014-204671
17.
ColquhounH. L.BrehautJ. C.SalesA.IversN.GrimshawJ.MichieS.CarrollK.ChalifouxM.EvaK. W. (2013). A systematic review of the use of theory in randomized controlled trials of audit and feedback. Implementation Science, 8(1), 66. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-66
18.
ColquhounH. L.SquiresJ. E.KolehmainenN.FraserC.GrimshawJ. M. (2017). Methods for designing interventions to change healthcare professionals’ behaviour: A systematic review. Implementation Science, 12(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0560-5
19.
CorintiF.PontilloD.GiansantiD. (2022). COVID-19 and the infodemic: An overview of the role and impact of social media, the evolution of medical knowledge, and emerging problems. Healthcare (Basel), 10(4), 732. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10040732
DamschroderL. J.ReardonC. M.WiderquistM. A. O.LoweryJ. (2022). The updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research based on user feedback. Implementation Science, 17(1), 75. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-022-01245-0
22.
DiekmanC.RyanC. D.OliverT. L. (2023). Misinformation and disinformation in food science and nutrition: Impact on practice. The Journal of Nutrition, 153(1), 3–9.
23.
DomenicoG. D.SitJ.IshizakaA.NunanD. (2021). Fake news, social media and marketing: A systematic review. Journal of Business Research, 124, 329–341. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2020.11.037
24.
EcclesM.GrimshawJ.WalkerA.JohnstonM.PittsN. (2005). Changing the behavior of healthcare professionals: The use of theory in promoting the uptake of research findings. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 107–112.
25.
EcclesM.MittmanB. (2006). Welcome to implementation science. Implementation Science, 1(1), 1.
26.
EckerU. K. H.LewandowskyS.CookJ.SchmidP.FazioL. K.BrashierN.KendeouP.VragaE. K.AmazeenM. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
27.
The EndNote Team. (2013). EndNote (Version EndNote 20) [64 bit]. Clarivate.
FeldsteinA. C.GlasgowR. E. (2008). A practical, robust implementation and sustainability model (PRISM) for integrating research findings into practice. The Joint Commission Journal on Quality and Patient Safety, 34(4), 228–243. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1553-7250(08)34030-6
31.
FreemanD.WaiteF.RosebrockL.PetitA.CausierC.EastA.JennerL.TealeA. L.CarrL.MulhallS.BoldE.LambeS. (2022). Coronavirus conspiracy beliefs, mistrust, and compliance with government guidelines in England. Psychological Medicine, 52(2), 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291720001890
32.
FrenchS. D.GreenS. E.O’ConnorD. A.McKenzieJ. E.FrancisJ. J.MichieS.BuchbinderR.SchattnerP.SpikeN.GrimshawJ. M. (2012). Developing theory-informed behaviour change interventions to implement evidence into practice: A systematic approach using the Theoretical Domains Framework. Implementation Science, 7(1), 38.
33.
GabarronE.OyeyemiS. O.WynnR. (2021). Covid-19-related misinformation on social media: A systematic review. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 99(6), 455–463A. https://doi.org/10.2471/BLT.20.276782
34.
GagliardiA. R. (2011). Tailoring interventions: Examining the evidence and identifying gaps. Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions, 31(4), 276–282. https://doi.org/10.1002/chp.20141
35.
GagliardiA. R.DobrowM. J. (2016). Identifying the conditions needed for integrated knowledge translation (IKT) in health care organizations: Qualitative interviews with researchers and research users. BMC Health Services Research, 16, Article 256. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-016-1533-0
36.
GopichandranV.LuyckxV. A.Biller-AndornoN.FairchildA.SinghJ.TranN.SaxenaA.LaunoisP.ReisA.MaherD.VahediM. (2016). Developing the ethics of implementation research in health. Implementation Science, 11(1), 161. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-016-0527-y
37.
GottliebM.HaasM. R.DanielM.ChanT. M. (2021). The scoping review: A flexible, inclusive, and iterative approach to knowledge synthesis. AEM Education and Training, 5(3), Article e10609.
38.
GrahamI. D.KothariA.McCutcheonC. (2018). Moving knowledge into action for more effective practice, programmes and policy: Protocol for a research programme on integrated knowledge translation. Implementation Science, 13(1), 22. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-017-0700-y
39.
GrahamI. D.LoganJ. (2004). Innovations in knowledge transfer and continuity of care. The Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 36(2), 89–103.
40.
Grandon GillT. (2019). Fake news and informing science. Information Science, 22, 115–136. https://doi.org/10.28945/4265
41.
GrovesC. (2019). Post-truth and anthropogenic climate change: Asking the right questions. Wires Climate Change, 10(6), Article e620. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.620
42.
GurevitchJ.KorichevaJ.NakagawaS.StewartG. (2018). Meta-analysis and the science of research synthesis. Nature, 555(7695), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature25753
43.
HuttonJ. L.EcclesM. P.GrimshawJ. M. (2008). Ethical issues in implementation research: A discussion of the problems in achieving informed consent. Implementation Science, 3(1), 52. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-3-52
44.
JohnstonM.CareyR. N.Connell BohlenL. E.JohnstonD. W.RothmanA. J.de BruinM.KellyM. P.GroarkeH.MichieS. (2020). Development of an online tool for linking behavior change techniques and mechanisms of action based on triangulation of findings from literature synthesis and expert consensus. Translational Behavioral Medicine, 11(5), 1049–1065. https://doi.org/10.1093/tbm/ibaa050
45.
KlaicM.KappS.HudsonP.ChapmanW.DenehyL.StoryD.FrancisJ. J. (2022). Implementability of healthcare interventions: An overview of reviews and development of a conceptual framework. Implementation Science, 17(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01171-7
KopansD. B. (2018). The breast cancer screening “arcade” and the “whack-a-mole” efforts to reduce access to screening. Seminars in Ultrasound, CT and MRI, 39(1), 2–15. https://doi.org/10.1053/j.sult.2017.06.002
KothariA.McCutcheonC.GrahamI. D. (2017). Defining integrated knowledge translation and moving forward: A response to recent commentaries. International Journal of Health Policy and Management, 6(5), 299–300. https://doi.org/10.15171/ijhpm.2017.15
51.
KothariA.WathenC. N. (2017). Integrated knowledge translation: Digging deeper, moving forward. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 71(6), 619–623. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44363670
52.
KrishnaA.ThompsonT. L. (2021). Misinformation about health: A review of health communication and misinformation scholarship. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(2), 316–332. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764219878223
53.
KwasnickaD.DombrowskiS. U.WhiteM.SniehottaF. (2016). Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: A systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychology Review, 10(3), 277–296. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2016.1151372
54.
LahsenM. (2008). Experiences of modernity in the greenhouse: A cultural analysis of a physicist “trio” supporting the backlash against global warming. Global Environmental Change, 18(1), 204–219.
LarsonH. J.GakidouE.MurrayC. J. L. (2022). The vaccine-hesitant moment. New England Journal of Medicine, 387(1), 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMra2106441
57.
LazerD. M. J.BaumM. A.BenklerY.BerinskyA. J.GreenhillK. M.MenczerF.MetzgerM. J.NyhanB.PennycookG.RothschildD.SchudsonM.SlomanS. A.SunsteinC. R.ThorsonE. A.WattsD. J.ZittrainJ. L. (2018). The science of fake news. Science, 359(6380), 1094–1096. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aao2998
58.
LevacD.ColquhounH.O’BrienK. K. (2010). Scoping studies: Advancing the methodology. Implementation Science, 5, 69.
59.
LewandowskyS.EckerU. K. H.SeifertC. M.SchwarzN.CookJ. (2012). Misinformation and its correction: Continued influence and successful debiasing. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 13(3), 106–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100612451018
60.
LewisC. C.KlasnjaP.LyonA. R.PowellB. J.Lengnick-HallR.BuchananG.MezaR. D.ChanM. C.BoyntonM. H.WeinerB. J. (2022). The mechanics of implementation strategies and measures: Advancing the study of implementation mechanisms. Implementation Science Communications, 3(1), 114. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-022-00358-3
61.
LewisC. C.KlasnjaP.PowellB. J.LyonA. R.TuzzioL.JonesS.Walsh-BaileyC.WeinerB. (2018). From classification to causality: Advancing understanding of mechanisms of change in implementation science. Frontiers in Public Health, 6, Article 136.
62.
LoftusE. F. (2005). Planting misinformation in the human mind: A 30-year investigation of the malleability of memory. Learning & Memory, 12(4), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1101/lm.94705
63.
LuyckxV. A.ReisA.MaherD.VahediM. (2019). Highlighting the ethics of implementation research. The Lancet Global Health, 7(9), e1170–e1171. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(19)30310-9
64.
MarquesM. M.WrightA. J.CorkerE.JohnstonM.WestR.HastingsJ.ZhangL.MichieS. (2024). The behaviour change technique ontology: Transforming the Behaviour Change Technique taxonomy v1. Wellcome Open Research, 8, 308. https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.19363.1
65.
McCrightA. M.DunlapR. E. (2003). Defeating Kyoto: The conservative movement’s impact on US climate change policy. Social Problems, 50(3), 348–373.
66.
McHughS. M.RiordanF.KerinsC.CurranG.LewisC. C.PresseauJ.WolfendenL.PowellB. J. (2023). Understanding tailoring to support the implementation of evidence-based interventions in healthcare: The CUSTOMISE research programme protocol. HRB Open Research, 6, 7. https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13675.1
67.
MerchantR. M.SouthE. C.LurieN. (2021). Public health messaging in an era of social media. Journal of the American Medical Association, 325(3), 223–224.
68.
MichieS.RichardsonM.JohnstonM.AbrahamC.FrancisJ.HardemanW.EcclesM. P.CaneJ.WoodC. E. (2013). The behavior change technique taxonomy (v1) of 93 hierarchically clustered techniques: Building an international consensus for the reporting of behavior change interventions. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 46(1), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12160-013-9486-6
69.
MichieS.van StralenM. M.WestR. (2011). The behaviour change wheel: A new method for characterising and designing behaviour change interventions. Implementation Science, 6(1), 42. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-6-42
70.
MoherD.TetzlaffJ.TriccoA. C.SampsonM.AltmanD. G. (2007). Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLOS Medicine, 4(3), Article e78.
71.
MoullinJ. C.SklarM.GreenA.DicksonK. S.StadnickN. A.ReederK.AaronsG. A. (2020). Advancing the pragmatic measurement of sustainment: A narrative review of measures. Implementation Science Communications, 1(1), 76. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-020-00068-8
72.
MuhammedT. S.MathewS. K. (2022). The disaster of misinformation: A review of research in social media. International Journal of Data Science and Analytics, 13(4), 271–285. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41060-022-00311-6
73.
MunnZ.PetersM. D. J.SternC.TufanaruC.McArthurA.AromatarisE. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), Article 143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x
74.
NielsenS. F.NordestgaardB. G. (2016). Negative statin-related news stories decrease statin persistence and increase myocardial infarction and cardiovascular mortality: A nationwide prospective cohort study. European Heart Journal, 37(11), 908–916. https://doi.org/10.1093/eurheartj/ehv641
75.
NilsenP.IngvarssonS.HassonH.von Thiele SchwarzU.AugustssonH. (2020). Theories, models, and frameworks for de-implementation of low-value care: A scoping review of the literature. Implementation Research and Practice, 1, 2633489520953762. https://doi.org/10.1177/2633489520953762
76.
Office of the Surgeon General. (2021). Confronting health misinformation: The U.S. Surgeon General’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. US Department of Health and Human Services.
77.
OliverK.KothariA.MaysN. (2019). The dark side of coproduction: Do the costs outweigh the benefits for health research?Health Research Policy and Systems, 17(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-019-0432-3
78.
OliverK.LorencT.TinklerJ.BonellC. (2019). Understanding the unintended consequences of public health policies: The views of policymakers and evaluators. BMC Public Health, 19(1), Article 1057. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7389-6
PateyA. M.GrimshawJ. M.FrancisJ. J. (2021). Changing behaviour, “more or less”: Do implementation and de-implementation interventions include different behaviour change techniques?Implementation Science, 16(1), 20. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-021-01089-0
PetersM. D. J.MarnieC.TriccoA. C.PollockD.MunnZ.AlexanderL.McInerneyP.GodfreyC. M.KhalilH. (2020). Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews. JBI Evidence Synthesis, 18(10), 2119–2126. https://doi.org/10.11124/jbies-20-00167
84.
PowellB. J.BeidasR. S.LewisC. C.AaronsG. A.McMillenJ. C.ProctorE. K.MandellD. S. (2017). Methods to improve the selection and tailoring of implementation strategies. The Journal of Behavioral Health Services & Research, 44(2), 177–194. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11414-015-9475-6
85.
PresseauJ.McClearyN.LorencattoF.PateyA. M.GrimshawJ. M.FrancisJ. J. (2019). Action, actor, context, target, time (AACTT): A framework for specifying behaviour. Implementation Science, 14(1), 102. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-019-0951-x
86.
ProctorE. K.BungerA. C.Lengnick-HallR.GerkeD. R.MartinJ. K.PhillipsR. J.SwansonJ. C. (2023). Ten years of implementation outcomes research: A scoping review. Implementation Science, 18(1), 31. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-023-01286-z
87.
ProctorE. K.SilmereH.RaghavanR.HovmandP.AaronsG.BungerA.GriffeyR.HensleyM. (2011). Outcomes for implementation research: Conceptual distinctions, measurement challenges, and research agenda. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health, 38(2), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10488-010-0319-7
88.
RogersE. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). The Free Press.
89.
RoozenbeekJ.SchneiderC. R.DryhurstS.KerrJ.FreemanA. L.RecchiaG.Van Der BlesA. M.Van Der LindenS. (2020). Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. Royal Society Open Science, 7(10), 201199.
90.
ScalesD.GormanJ.JamiesonK. H. (2021). The Covid-19 infodemic—Applying the epidemiologic model to counter misinformation. The New England Journal of Medicine, 385(8), 678–681. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp2103798
91.
SheltonR. C.CooperB. R.StirmanS. W. (2018). The sustainability of evidence-based interventions and practices in public health and health care. Annual Review of Public Health, 39(1), 55–76. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-040617-014731
92.
SkivingtonK.MatthewsL.SimpsonS. A.CraigP.BairdJ.BlazebyJ. M.BoydK. A.CraigN.FrenchD. P.McIntoshE. (2021). A new framework for developing and evaluating complex interventions: Update of Medical Research Council guidance. BMJ, 374, n2061.
SquiresJ. E.GrahamI. D.SantosW. J.HutchinsonA. M.BackmanC.BergströmA.BrehautJ.BrouwersM.BurtonC.de CandidoL. K.CassidyC.ChalmersC.ChapmanA.ColquhounH.CurranJ.VarinM. D.DoeringP.RoseA. E.FaircloughL.. . .TheI. T. (2023). The Implementation in Context (ICON) Framework: A meta-framework of context domains, attributes and features in healthcare. Health Research Policy and Systems, 21(1), 81. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-023-01028-z
95.
TriccoA. C.LillieE.ZarinW.O’BrienK. K.ColquhounH.LevacD.MoherD.PetersM. D. J.HorsleyT.WeeksL.HempelS.AklE. A.ChangC.McGowanJ.StewartL.HartlingL.AldcroftA.WilsonM. G.GarrittyC.. . .StrausS. E. (2018). PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Annals of Internal Medicine, 169(7), 467–473. https://doi.org/10.7326/m18-0850
96.
VaissonG.ProvencherT.DugasM.TrottierM.Chipenda DansokhoS.ColquhounH.FagerlinA.GiguereA. M. C.HakimH.HaslettL.HoffmanA. S.IversN. M.JulienA. S.LégaréF.RenaudJ. S.StaceyD.VolkR. J.WittemanH. O. (2021). User involvement in the design and development of patient decision aids and other personal health tools: A systematic review. Medical Decision Making, 41(3), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x20984134
97.
van der LindenS.LeiserowitzA.RosenthalS.MaibachE. (2017). Inoculating the public against misinformation about climate change. Global Challenges, 1(2), 1600008. https://doi.org/10.1002/gch2.201600008
98.
VasistP. N.KrishnanS. (2022). Demystifying fake news in the hospitality industry: A systematic literature review, framework, and an agenda for future research. International Journal of Hospitality Management, 106, 103277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhm.2022.103277
99.
Veritas Health Innovation. (2022). Covidence systematic review software. www.covidence.org
100.
WangY.McKeeM.TorbicaA.StucklerD. (2019). Systematic literature review on the spread of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medicine, 240, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
101.
WeijerC.GrimshawJ. M.EcclesM. P.McRaeA. D.WhiteA.BrehautJ. C.TaljaardM. (2012). The Ottawa statement on the ethical design and conduct of cluster randomized trials. PLOS Medicine, 9(11), Article e1001346. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001346
102.
WhelanJ.LoveP.PettmanT.DoyleJ.BoothS.SmithE.WatersE. (2014). Cochrane update: Predicting sustainability of intervention effects in public health evidence: Identifying key elements to provide guidance. Journal of Public Health, 36(2), 347–351. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdu027
103.
WilsonS. L.WiysongeC. (2020). Social media and vaccine hesitancy. BMJ Global Health, 5(10), Article e004206.
104.
WolfendenL.ShoesmithA.HallA.BaumanA.NathanN. (2024). An initial typology of approaches used by policy and practice agencies to achieve sustained implementation of interventions to improve health. Implementation Science Communications, 5(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s43058-024-00555-2
105.
World Health Organization, United Nations, United Nations Children’s Fund, United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS, International Telecommunication Union, United Nations Global Pulse, & International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. (2020). Managing the COVID-19 infodemic: Promoting healthy behaviours and mitigating the harm from misinformation and disinformation. https://www.who.int/news/item/23-09-2020-managing-the-covid-19-infodemic-promoting-healthy-behaviours-and-mitigating-the-harm-from-misinformation-and-disinformation
106.
World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2023). A guide to tailoring health programmes: Using behavioural and cultural insights to tailor health policies, services and communications to the needs and circumstances of people and communities. https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/367041
107.
ZhaoS.HuS.ZhouX.SongS.WangQ.ZhengH.ZhangY.HouZ. (2023). The prevalence, features, influencing factors, and solutions for COVID-19 vaccine misinformation: Systematic review. JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, 9, Article e40201. https://doi.org/10.2196/40201
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
