Appraising and Handling COVID-19 Information: A Qualitative Study

Abstract

Background. The coronavirus pandemic brought vast quantities of new information to the public for rapid consumption. This study explored how people most impacted by the pandemic have judged and perceived the quality of information regarding COVID-19 and regulated the information flow. Methods. This was a qualitative study of semi-structured interviews developed as a pragmatic study targeting several groups most impacted by the pandemic. Participants were identified through convenience, purposive, and snowball sampling methods. They were interviewed by phone or video conference. Results. Twenty-five participants were interviewed between 6 April 2020 and 1 May 2020. In terms of verifying information and judging its quality, people judged information by the source. People compared information across sources and attempted to verify the quality. Most felt self-assured about their capacity to judge information. Regarding the quality of information, many participants felt the information was skewed or inaccurate. Contradictory information was confusing, especially with a strong suspicion of ulterior motives of information sources impacting trust in the provided information. Yet, some recognized the iterative process of healthcare-related information. In terms of regulating information flow, many participants perceived flooding with information. To counter information overload, some became selective with types of information input. Many developed the habit of taking breaks periodically. Conclusion. Improving risk communication in a pandemic is of paramount importance. Organizations working in public health must develop ways to regulate information flow in collaboration with trusted community partners. Individuals also must develop strategies to improve information management.