Affiliations 

  • 1 School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia
  • 2 School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800, Penang, Malaysia. abuushaaban2@gmail.com
  • 3 School of Pharmacy and Pharmacology, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Australia
  • 4 Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Outcomes Sciences, College of Pharmacy, University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
  • 5 Malaria Consortium, Jigawa State Office, Dutse, Nigeria
  • 6 Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Bayero University, Kano, Nigeria
  • 7 Centre for Rural Health, School of Health Sciences, College of Health and Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
PMID: 33469869 DOI: 10.1007/s40615-020-00942-0

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A relentless flood of information accompanied the novel coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. False news, conspiracy theories, and magical cures were shared with the general public at an alarming rate, which may lead to increased anxiety and stress levels and associated debilitating consequences.

OBJECTIVES: To measure the level of COVID-19 information overload (COVIO) and assess the association between COVIO and sociodemographic characteristics among the general public.

METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted between April and May 2020 using a modified Cancer Information Overload scale. The survey was developed and posted on four social media platforms. The data were only collected from those who consented to participate. COVIO score was classified into high vs. low using the asymmetrical distribution as a guide and conducted a binary logistic regression to examine the factors associated with COVIO.

RESULTS: A total number of 584 respondents participated in this study. The mean COVIO score of the respondents was 19.4 (± 4.0). Sources and frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were found to be significant predictors of COVIO. Participants who received information via the broadcast media were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information via the social media (adjusted odds ratio ([aOR],14.599; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.608-132.559; p = 0.017). Also, participants who received COVID-19 information every minute (aOR, 3.892; 95% CI, 1.124-13.480; p = 0.032) were more likely to have high COVIO than those who received information every week.

CONCLUSION: The source of information and the frequency of receiving COVID-19 information were significantly associated with COVIO. The COVID-19 information is often conflicting, leading to confusion and overload of information in the general population. This can have unfavorable effects on the measures taken to control the transmission and management of COVID-19 infection.

* Title and MeSH Headings from MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine.