Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
Sexual Health Sexual Health Society
Publishing on sexual health from the widest perspective
Shopping Cart: ( empty )
You are here: Home > Journals > SH > SH23158
RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)
Contents Vol 21(1)

A qualitative review of social media sharing and the 2022 monkeypox outbreak: did early labelling help to curb misinformation or fuel the fire?

Maria E. Dalton https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1382-8953 A B * , Robert Duffy C D , Emma Quinn https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3130-259X C D E , Kristian Larsen https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1056-1867 E F G , Cheryl Peters https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1202-5689 E H I , Darren Brenner B D , Lin Yang D J and Daniel Rainham https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3932-2942 K L
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations

A Libin Cardiovascular Institute, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

B Department of Community Health Science, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

C School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

D Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.

E CAREX Canada, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

F Department of Geography and Planning, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada.

G Department of Geography and Environmental Studies, Toronto Metropolitan University, Toronto, ON, Canada.

H British Columbia Centre for Disease Control, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

I BC Cancer, Vancouver, BC, Canada.

J Alberta Health Services, Calgary, AB, Canada.

K Healthy Populations Institute, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

L School of Health and Human Performance, Dalhousie University, Halifax, NS, Canada.

* Correspondence to: maria.dalton1@ucalgary.ca

Handling Editor: Heather Armstrong

Sexual Health 21, SH23158 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH23158
Submitted: 25 August 2023  Accepted: 16 January 2024  Published: 1 February 2024

© 2024 The Author(s) (or their employer(s)). Published by CSIRO Publishing. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY)

Abstract

Background

Misinformation, defined as a claim that is false or misleading, considers information that is both shared with the intention of causing harm, and information that is false with no ill intent. Early attempts to downplay the risk of monkeypox (mpox) by singling out men who have sex with men (MSM) may have had the ill effect of stigmatising this group in discussions online. The aim of this study was to evaluate themes present on Instagram related to the 2022 mpox outbreak under #monkeypox. Specifically, this study sought to determine if the pervasive narratives surrounding the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, particularly related to government mistrust and conspiracy, were penetrating discussions about mpox.

Methods

A total of 255 posts under #monkeypox (the top 85 posts per day, every 10 days in July 2022) were collected on Instagram. A content analysis approach, which seeks to quantify themes present, was utilised to evaluate themes present in posts under #monkeypox.

Results

Contrary to previous research investigating public health misinformation online, the majority of posts under #monkeypox were categorised as accurate information (85.9%). Moreover, a surprising number of posts were classified as anti-misinformation (32.9%), whereby users actively worked to debunk false information being shared online related to mpox.

Conclusions

We hypothesise that early labelling of the disease as one that strictly affects online MSM communities has resulted in the digital community coming together to fact-check and debunk misinformation under #monkeypox on Instagram.

Keywords: anti-misinformation, homophobia, misinformation, monkeypox, mpox, mythbusting, sexual health, social media.

References

1  Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J. Prevalence of health misinformation on social media: systematic review. J Med Internet Res 2021; 23(1): e17187.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

2  World Health Organization. Infodemic. 2024. Available at https://www.who.int/health-topics/infodemic#tab=tab_1

3  World Health Organization. Monkeypox. Available at https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/monkeypox

4  Quinn EK, Fazel SS, Peters CE. The Instagram infodemic: cobranding of conspiracy theories, coronavirus disease 2019 and authority-questioning beliefs. Cyberpsychol Behav Soc Netw 2021; 24(8): 573-577.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

5  Jolley D, Paterson JL. Pylons ablaze: examining the role of 5G COVID-19 conspiracy beliefs and support for violence. Br J Soc Psychol 2020; 59(3): 628-640.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

6  Anastasiades E, Argyrides M, Mousoulidou M. Misinformation about COVID-19: psychological insights. Encyclopedia 2021; 1(4): 1200-1214.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

7  Jun S, Wu J. Words that hurt: leaders’ anti-Asian communication and employee outcomes. J Appl Psychol 2021; 106(2): 169-184.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

8  Quinn EK, Fenton S, Ford-Sahibzada CA, Harper A, Marcon AR, Caulfield T, et al. COVID-19 and vitamin D misinformation on YouTube: content analysis. JMIR Infodemiol 2022; 2(1): e32452.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

9  Sandelowski M, Barroso J. Writing the proposal for a qualitative research methodology project. Qual Health Res 2003; 13(6): 781-820.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

10  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.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

11  Vaismoradi M, Snelgrove S. Theme in qualitative content analysis and thematic analysis. Forum Qual Sozialforschung 2019; 20(3): 23.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

12  Chacon B. Trending Instagram Hashtags: 4 ways to get your post featured. LaterBlog. 2017. Available at https://later.com/blog/trending-instagram-hashtags/ [cited 20 November 2021]

13  Gbrich C. Qualitative data analysis: an introduction. 1st edn. SAGE Publications; 2007.

14  Marie A, Altay S, Strickland B. The cognitive foundations of misinformation on science: What we know and what scientists can do about it. EMBO Rep 2020; 21(4): e50205 Available at https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.15252/embr.202050205 [cited 9 October 2022].
| Google Scholar |

15  Mathieu E, Spooner F, Dattani S, Ritchie H, Roser M. Mpox (monkeypox). 2022. Available at https://ourworldindata.org/monkeypox

16  Fellenor J, Barnett J, Potter C, Urquhart J, Mumford JD, Quine CP. The social amplification of risk on Twitter: the case of ash dieback disease in the United Kingdom. J Risk Res 2018; 21(10): 1163-1183.
| Crossref | Google Scholar |

17  Wirz CD, Xenos MA, Brossard D, Scheufele D, Chung JH, Massarani L. Rethinking social amplification of risk: social Media and Zika in three languages. Risk Anal 2018; 38(12): 2599-2624.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

18  Di Gennaro F, Veronese N, Marotta C, Shin JI, Koyanagi A, Silenzi A, et al. Human monkeypox: a comprehensive narrative review and analysis of the public health implications. Microorganisms 2022; 10(8): 1633.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

19  Daskalakis D, McClung RP, Mena L, Mermin J. Monkeypox: avoiding the mistakes of past infectious disease epidemics. Ann Intern Med 2022; 175(8): 1177-1178.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |

20  Jeung R, Nham K. Incidents of coronavirus-related discrimination. Available at https://www.asianpacificpolicyandplanningcouncil.org/wp-content/uploads/STOP_AAPI_HATE_MONTHLY_REPORT_4_23_20.pdf

21  Government of Canada. Mpox (monkeypox). 2023. Available at https://www.canada.ca/en/public-health/services/diseases/mpox.html

22  Harapan H, Ophinni Y, Megawati D, Frediansyah A, Mamada SS, Salampe M, et al. Monkeypox: a comprehensive review. Viruses 2022; 14(10): 2155.
| Crossref | Google Scholar | PubMed |