What Does the Public Want to Know About The COVID-19 Pandemic? A Systematic Analysis of Questions Asked in The Internet
George, J.; Gautam, D.; Kesarwani, V.; Sugumar, P. A.; Malhotra, R.
Show abstract
Background Quora is a popular question and answer (Q&A) website that enables people to connect with others and clear their doubts about the coronavirus disease (COVID-19). In this study, we analysed the content, type and quality of Q&As in Quora regarding this pandemic, and compared the information with that on World Health Organization (WHO) website. Methods We conducted a systematic search to include 964 questions in Quora. The tone of the question was categorized as either positive (questions with a primary intent to obtain information), negative (questions which represent panic or are related to misconception/false information) or ambivalent. The two most helpful answers of each question were graded for accuracy, authority, popularity, readability, and relevancy. Results 462 (48%) questions were classified as positive, while 391 (41%) were negative. Number of views were higher for negative questions (11421 vs 7300, p=0.004). Majority of the questions were on social impact (N=217, 23%), followed by politics (N=122, 13%) and disease management (N=96, 10%). Positive questions had more accurate, but less popular answers (p<0.05). Information related to 229 (28%) questions were present on WHO website, while partial information was present for 103 (11%) questions. Discussion Higher views with negative questions suggest that false and panic promoting information is more likely to get public attention. A substantial amount of questions was related to the present and future effects of COVID-19 on social and personal lives of the users which were not readily available on official health websites.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Knowledge, attitude, and practice related to the COVID-19 pandemic among undergraduate medical students in Indonesia: a nationwide cross-sectional study 92%
- Accuracy of online symptom checkers and the potential impact on service utilisation 92%
- "Even though I am alone, I feel that we are many" - An appreciative inquiry study of asynchronous, provider-to-provider teleconsultations in Turkana, Kenya 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Health Communication Through News Media During the Early Stage of the COVID-19 Outbreak in China: A Digital Topic Modeling Approach 93%
- Using rapid online surveys to assess perceptions during infectious disease outbreaks: a cross-sectional survey on Covid-19 among the general public in the United States and United Kingdom 93%
- Has the pandemic enhanced and sustained digital health-seeking behaviour? A big data interrupted time-series analysis of Google Trends 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Applications and barriers to use of an mHealth iPhone application for self-management of chronic recurrent medical conditions: A Pilot Study 93%
- A Web-based, Mobile Responsive Application to Screen Healthcare Workers for COVID Symptoms: Descriptive Study 92%
- (Mis) Communicating The Gut Microbiome: A Cross-Sectional Assessment of Social Media Video Content 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Examining Australian's beliefs, misconceptions, and sources of information for COVID-19: A national online survey 94%
- Online information on face masks in Italian and English websites: deficiencies and responsibilities of search engines 94%
- Information given by websites selling home self-sampling COVID-19 tests: An analysis of accuracy and completeness 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- A topic analysis of traditional and social media news coverage of the early COVID-19 pandemic and implications for public health communication 93%
- Suitability of Google Trends ™ for digital surveillance during ongoing COVID-19 epidemic: a case study from India 92%
- The psychological effects of COVID-19 on frontline healthcare workers and how they are coping: a web-based, cross-sectional study from Pakistan 91%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.