Background: Disinformation has become an increasing societal concern, especially due to the speed that news is shared in the current digital era. In particular in the healthcare sector disinformation can lead to serious casualties, as the current COVID-19 crisis clearly shows. Objective: The main aim of this study was to experimentally examine the effects of information about the source's and a displayed protective warning message on users' critical evaluation of news items, as well as the perception of accuracy of the news item. Methods: A 3(unreliable versus reliable versus no identified source) x 2 (protective message: with versus without) between subject design has been conducted among 307 participants (mean age = 29 years, SD = 10.9 years).
Age range
18 Years
Sex
ALL
See this in plain English?
AI-rewrites the medical criteria so a patient or caregiver can understand them. Always confirm with the trial site.
Bring these to your next appointment. They're a starting point for a shared conversation — not a sign you qualify or a recommendation to enrol.
Generated to help you prepare — always confirm anything about your own eligibility and care with the study team and your doctor.
The trial coordinator is the person who runs the study day to day. These cover the practical side — logistics, costs, and what taking part would actually mean for your life. The study team confirms whether you meet the criteria; these are questions to ask, not a sign you qualify.
A starting point for the conversation — always confirm anything about your own eligibility, costs, and care with the study team and your doctor.
Critical evaluation of source and news
Timeframe: immediately after exposure, 5 minutes