Skip to Main Content

RTI uses cookies to offer you the best experience online. By and clicking “accept” on this website, you opt in and you agree to the use of cookies. If you would like to know more about how RTI uses cookies and how to manage them please view our Privacy Policy here. You can “opt out” or change your mind by visiting: http://optout.aboutads.info/. Click “accept” to agree.

Accept
RTI International
  • About
    • Office Locations
    • Executive Leadership
    • Corporate Governance
    • Partner with Us
      • U.S. Government
      • Clients and Funding Agencies
      • Industry and Commercial Clients
      • Foundations and Associations
      • Bilateral Agencies and Multilateral Banks
      • Universities and Academic Research Institutions
      • Suppliers and Small Businesses
    • Commitment to Quality
      • RTI's Client Listening Program
    • Ethics and Human Research Protection
    • Living Our Mission
    • Open Science Initiative
    • Veteran Opportunities at RTI

    About

  • Practice Areas
    • Health
      • Public Health and Well-Being
      • Health Care Transformation
      • Behavioral Health
      • Health Behavior Change
      • Precision Medicine
      • RTI Health Solutions (RTI-HS)
      • RTI Center for Community Health Evaluation and Economics Research
      • Health Equity
      • RTI Health Advance
    • Transformative Research Unit for Equity​
      • Equity Capacity Building Hub
      • Social and Economic Justice Research Collaborative
      • Narrative Research and Community Engagement Lab
    • Education and Workforce Development
      • Early Childhood
      • K-12 Education
      • Postsecondary Education
      • Career and Adult Education and Workforce Development
      • Education Policy, Systems, and Governance
      • Education Research Methodologies
      • Education Technologies
    • International Development
      • Energy for Development
      • Environment
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Global Health
      • International Education
      • Monitoring, Evaluation, Research, Learning, and Adapting (MERLA)
      • Youth and Economic Opportunity
      • Building Resilience Against COVID-19 in Developing Countries
      • Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH)
      • RTI Center for Governance
    • Climate Change
      • Clean Energy Technology and Renewables
      • Climate Finance
      • Climate Justice and Equity
      • Climate Planning, Preparedness and Resilience
      • Climate Policy
      • Climate Vulnerability, Adaptation, and Mitigation
      • Economic Impacts of Climate Change
    • Water
      • Food-Energy-Water Nexus
      • Water Quality
      • WASH (Water, Sanitation, Hygiene)
      • Water Resources Management
    • Energy Research
      • Carbon Capture and Utilization
      • Biomass Conversion
      • Natural Gas
      • Energy Efficiency
      • Industrial Water
      • Syngas Processing
    • Environmental Sciences
      • Air Quality
      • RTI Center for Water Resources
      • Urban Sustainability
      • Toxics
      • Building Resiliency in the FEW Nexus
      • Climate Change Sciences and Analysis
      • Environmental Policy
      • Environmental Justice
      • Sustainable Materials & Waste Management Solutions
    • Justice Research and Policy
      • RTI Center for Community Safety and Crime Prevention
      • RTI Center for Policing Research and Investigative Science
      • Child Well-Being and Family Strengthening
      • RTI Center for Forensic Sciences
      • Evidence-Based Strategies to Reduce Firearm Violence
    • Food Security and Agriculture
      • Market Systems Strengthening
      • Food Safety
      • Food and Nutrition
      • Global Food Security, Agriculture, and Nutrition
      • Climate-Smart Agriculture
      • Agricultural Innovation
      • Obesity Prevention
    • Innovation Ecosystems
      • Innovation Advising
      • Innovation for Economic Growth
      • Innovation for Emerging and Developing Economies
      • Innovation for Organizations
      • Research, Technology, and Innovation Policy
      • Technology Acceleration
    • Military Support
      • Military Behavioral Health
      • Military Health and Human Performance
      • Military Sexual Assault, Harassment, and Domestic Violence Prevention
      • Wearable Sensor Technologies
      • Military Health System Transformation
      • North Carolina Center for Optimizing Military Performance

    Practice Areas

  • Services + Capabilities
    • Surveys and Data Collection
      • Survey Design
      • Instrument Development
      • Survey Methodologies
      • Data Collection
      • Establishment Surveys
      • Health Registries
      • Data Analysis and Reporting
      • Research Operations Center
    • Statistics and Data Science
      • Survey Statistics
      • Environmental Statistics
      • Coordinating Centers for Multisite Studies
      • Analysis and Design of Complex Data
      • Biostatistics
      • RTI Center for Data Science
    • Evaluation, Assessment and Analysis
      • Evaluation Design and Execution
      • Advanced Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods
      • Evaluation, Monitoring, and Assessment
      • Economic Analysis
      • Evaluating Communication Interventions and Campaigns
      • Evidence Synthesis for Policy and Practice
      • Risk Assessment and Prediction
    • Program Design and Implementation
      • Systems Strengthening and Scaling
      • Capacity Assessment and Building
      • Policy Reform Support
      • Curriculum and Teacher Professional Development
      • Interventions and Prevention Programs
      • Implementation Science
    • Digital Solutions for Social Impact
      • Human-Centered Design of Digital Solutions
      • Digital Product Development
      • Digital Communication Campaigns
      • Digital Data Analytics
    • Research Technologies
      • Survey Technologies
      • Data Management and Decision Support Systems
      • Geospatial Science, Technology, and Visualization
      • ICT for Limited-Resource Settings
      • Mobile Applications
      • Web Applications
      • Bioinformatics
      • Interactive Computing
    • Drug Discovery and Development
      • Medicinal Chemistry
      • Molecular Design and Cheminformatics
      • Behavioral Pharmacology
      • Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics (DMPK)
      • In Vitro Pharmacology, Bioassay Development, and High-Throughput Screening (HTS)
      • Isotope Labeling
      • Regulatory Consulting and Support for Medical Products
    • Analytical Laboratory Sciences
      • Bioanalytical and Toxicology Research
      • Forensic Sciences
      • Physicochemical Characterizations
      • Metabolomics
      • Proficiency Testing and Reference Materials
      • Microbiology
      • Analytical Chemistry and Pharmaceutics
    • Engineering & Technology R&D
      • Biomedical Technologies
      • Decarbonization Sciences
      • Environmental Exposure & Protection
      • Materials & Environment
      • Sustainable Energy Solutions

    Services + Capabilities

  • Impact
    • Newsroom
    • Insights Blog
    • Events
    • Publications
    • RTI Press
      • About the RTI Press
      • Instructions for Authors
      • RTI Press Collections
    • Projects
    • Global Reach
      • Asia
      • Eastern Europe and Central Asia
      • RTI International India
      • Africa
      • Middle East and North Africa (MENA)
      • Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC)

    Impact

  • Experts
    • Our Experts
    • In-Depth With Our Experts
    • Related News
    • Experts In the Media
    • RTI Fellow Program

    Experts

  • Emerging Issues
    • COVID-19 Research
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Global Health Security
    • Cannabis Research
    • Opioid Research
      • Interventions for Opioid Use Disorders
      • Preventing Opioid Misuse and Overdose
      • Treating Opioid Use Disorders
    • Policing Research and Investigative Science
    • Drone Research and Application
    • E-cigarette Research
    • Zika Virus Research
    • Integrated Governance

    Emerging Issues

  • COVID-19 Research + Response
  • Global Reach
  • Insights Blog
  • Newsroom
  • RTI Press
  • Publications
  • Partner With Us
  • Careers
  • Facebook IconTwitter IconInstagram IconYouTube IconLinkedin Icon
  • Home
  • Impact
  • RTI Press
  • Equipping health professions educators to better address medical misinformation

Equipping health professions educators to better address medical misinformation

Edited by Brian G. Southwell, Andrea Anderson, Anne Berry, Kamilah Weems, Lisa Howley.

March 2023 Open Access Peer Reviewed

DOI: 10.3768/rtipress.2023.op.0086.2303

Check for Updates Download PDF
Southwell, B. G., Anderson, A., Berry, A., Weems, K., & Howley, L. (Eds.) (2023). Equipping health professions educators to better address medical misinformation. RTI Press. RTI Press Occasional Paper No. OP-0086-2303 https://doi.org/10.3768/rtipress.2023.op.0086.2303
Copy citation
Share
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on Twitter
  • Share on Linkedin
  • Email

Abstract

As part of a cooperative agreement with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Federal Award Identification Number [FAIN]: NU50CK000586), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) began a strategic initiative in 2022 both to increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and to address medical misinformation and mistrust through education in health professions contexts. Specifically, the AAMC solicited proposals for integrating competency-based, interprofessional strategies to mitigate health misinformation into new or existing curricula. Five Health Professions Education Curricular Innovations subgrantees received support from the AAMC in 2022 and reflected on the implementation of their ideas in a series of meetings over several months. Subgrantees included the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, the Maine Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, and the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. This paper comprises insights from each of the teams and overarching observations regarding the challenges and opportunities involved with leveraging health professions education to address medical misinformation and improve patient health.

Creative Commons © 2023 RTI International. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

Contents

  • Introduction
  • An Evidence-Based Approach to Helping Patients Who Encounter Misinformation Through Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy Student Training
    • Background
      • Project Description
        • Insights and Lessons Learned
        • Addressing Vaccine Misinformation: An Online Motivational Interviewing Module and Telehealth Standardized Patient Exercise to Address Misinformation With COVID-19 Vaccine–Hesitant Individuals
          • Background
            • Project Descriptions
              • Insights and Lessons Learned
              • Mitigating Medical Misinformation and Mistrust Through Effective Team Communication Using Innovative, Competency-Based Interprofessional Instructional Design
                • Background
                  • Project Description
                    • Insights and Lessons Learned
                    • Addressing COVID-19 Misinformation in Maine Through Collaborative Learning and Interprofessional Education
                      • Background
                        • Project Description
                          • Insights and Lessons Learned
                          • Training Interprofessional Teams to Improve Scientific Communication and Address Health Misinformation in Chicago Communities Using Social Media
                            • Background
                              • Project Description
                                • Insights and Lessons Learned
                                  • Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Curriculum
                                    • Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Methods
                                      • Professional Differences in Pedagogy
                                    • Observations Across Projects
                                    • Acknowledgments
                                    • References

                                    Equipping Health Professions Educators to Better Address Medical Misinformation

                                    By Brian G.SouthwellAndreaAndersonAnneBerryKamilahWeemsLisaHowley

                                    Introduction

                                    Brian G. Southwell, Andrea Anderson, Anne Berry, Kamilah Weems, and Lisa Howley

                                    Interpersonal interactions—such as one-on-one conversations between patients and their health-care providers—offer crucial opportunities to mitigate the effects of inaccurate information on patient health and well-being (Abbasi, 2021). Health-care professionals work directly with patients and can discuss pressing personal health concerns and questions with them. Patients in the United States generally continue to trust the health-care professionals with whom they work (Funk et al., 2019). Such trusted relationships can afford spaces in which patients can refer to questionable information that they have encountered, some of which is not consistent with the best available empirical evidence. Clinicians report regular encounters with patients who mention or question misinformation, and yet many clinicians also have not received any formal training for responding to such situations (Wood et al., 2021). That pattern of widespread concern and a paucity of reported training to mitigate the concern suggests the potential for health professions educational curricula to provide explicit tools and tactics for mitigating patient-held misinformation.

                                    As part of a cooperative agreement with the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (FAIN: NU50CK000586), the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) launched a strategic initiative in 2022 aimed to increase confidence in COVID-19 vaccines and to address medical misinformation and mistrust through education in health professions contexts. Specifically, the AAMC solicited proposals for competency-based, interprofessional strategies to mitigate health misinformation that operate through new or existing curricula. With this approach, the AAMC staff hoped to help medical schools, along with their nursing or pharmacy school partners, to build their capacity to communicate about health information and dispel misinformation.

                                    Five Health Professions Education Curricular Innovations subgrantees received support from the AAMC to launch their projects in 2022: the Donald and Barbara Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell, Florida International University Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine, the Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences at the University at Buffalo, the Maine Medical Center/Tufts University School of Medicine, and the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine. During a series of meetings over several months, the grantees collectively reflected on the implementation of their ideas and shared their lessons learned. Each team developed a short essay to describe their experience; these essays appear in this report.

                                    We have compiled these insights to inform the practical discussions that many medical educators are currently having to improve their local curricula. We have heard much about the need for health-care professionals to address misinformation held by patients (and by some health-care professionals). Innovative efforts such as those described in the following pages offer some blueprints for concrete steps that medical schools can take to do so.

                                    An Evidence-Based Approach to Helping Patients Who Encounter Misinformation Through Medical, Nursing, and Pharmacy Student Training

                                    Cristina Pelin,*,1 Maya Vasser,*,1 Michael Cassara,1, 2 Marie Cavuoto Petrizzo,1 Samara Ginzburg,1 Renee McLeod-Sordjan,1, 2 and Joseph Weiner1

                                    1Zucker School of Medicine at Hofstra/Northwell

                                    2Hofstra Northwell School of Nursing and Physician Assistant Studies

                                    *Co-first authors

                                    Background

                                    The emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic and the affiliated “infodemic” led to widespread dissemination of health misinformation across multiple media formats, generating confusion and distrust, with profound global consequences (Lewandowsky et al., 2021). At Northwell Health and the Zucker School of Medicine in New York, a gap analysis revealed that patients expect health-care providers to competently identify health misinformation and feel empowered to address it and that this should be done with attention to cultural/health literacy, equity, autonomy, beneficence, and professionalism.

                                    The current infodemic suggests a new era of public health vulnerability (Lewandowsky et al., 2021). As stewards of our community’s health, we must understand the root causes of this crisis and devise novel curricular strategies to combat it. Our project uses (1) our health system’s extensive experience with COVID-19 and vaccine misinformation, (2) the success of our innovative medical and nursing school programs, (3) our partnerships with St. John’s College of Pharmacy and community-based organizations (CBOs), and (4) our existing teaching Just in Time Teaching (JiTT) application (Ginzburg et al., 2019, and Cassara et al., 2014). We apply these to (1) create a new theory-based model for addressing health misinformation, (2) train our learners to apply this model to address health misinformation with patients, (3) develop novel resources, and (4) apply the model, the training, and the novel resources in real time with patients at a community health fair and receive feedback on the effectiveness of these initiatives.

                                    Project Description

                                    We employed an agile approach to project development and implementation, in which work on both community engagement and curricular threads occurred simultaneously, each informing the other. First, we organized ongoing bimonthly 1–1.5-hour progress meetings. Participants included project leads in curricular development, medical student consultants, stakeholders in the health system that focus on community engagement, faith-based community leaders at a partnering CBO, and liaisons at the pharmacy and nursing schools. In preparation for these meetings, we asked participants to reflect on their previous experience with addressing misinformation, including education or training, encounters with patients and community members, and their perceptions of challenges and associated community needs. During dedicated time in these meetings, we conducted open, unstructured interviews with different stakeholders in attendance. The reflections elicited were documented via interview notes taken in real time.

                                    Second, project leads organized and attended a site visit to our selected partnering CBO as part of planning for a community health fair to address misinformation. Leads met with community volunteers and leaders to reinforce rapport, assess onsite resources available and needed to support a health fair, and engage in health fair logistical planning.

                                    Lastly, we examined the existing curriculum, informed by discussions with both experts in vaccine misinformation and in patient-physician communication. This allowed us to identify opportunities for expansion of curricular activities to acquire knowledge about misinformation and skills to address it. We designed educational tools in the form of sample role plays for use with standardized patients during Objective Structured Clinical Examinations (OSCE) and JiTT infographics (Figure 1) to aid students in real life conversation with patients at the community health fair.

                                    Sample Just in Time Teaching Tool (JiTT) infographic in development

                                    Insights and Lessons Learned

                                    In designing this initiative, we had three expected outcomes:

                                    1. To build competencies to address misinformation via curricular change.

                                    2. To apply, assess, and re-practice skills developed through implemented educational sessions.

                                    3. To strategically impact patient care by equipping our trainees with tools to address misinformation at the interface of direct patient care.

                                    In our planning discussions, we found that most questions elicited the voices and experiences of our students and of patients themselves—the representatives of our goals and those to whom we hold ourselves accountable.

                                    A few key thematic elements arose from this, including the existence of a deep-seated mistrust in health-care systems, predominantly among communities that have historically been disenfranchised, disempowered, and hurt by these same systems, particularly Black, Indigenous, and People of Color communities. This was coupled with lack of comfort among medical students when engaging in conversations about vaccine hesitancy and misinformation, out of fear of confrontation and out of a commitment to rebuild trust effectively, rather than perpetuating past mechanisms of mistrust. Conversations with patients at the health fair primarily related to the COVID-19 booster and included questions about eligibility for, side effects of, and nearby locations to receive the booster; how the COVID-19 vaccine interacts with other vaccines; and whether it is safe to receive multiple vaccines simultaneously.

                                    We found that to effectively partner with the community and engage in cultural humility that work had to come first: our dialog with the community had to drive our educational mission, rather than the other way around. Thus, we sought to engage community leaders through Northwell and the Zucker School of Medicine’s existing CBO partnerships.

                                    In designing our health fair, we found it helpful to discuss, in addition to vaccines and vaccinations, other topics that our participants were seeking information about to engage participants in conversation and to address their current needs. This led to creating a large-scale health fair with the unifying theme of infusing agency and health autonomy back into the community, while empowering patients not only with information but also with the ability to distinguish misinformation from accurate, evidence-based findings. We aimed to achieve this by discussing illnesses prevalent in the community for which community members were seeking information, including high blood pressure, diabetes, the relationship between mental and physical health, and nutrition. Team members involved in this project were experts in diverse fields, including endocrinology, psychiatry, pediatrics, pharmacy, nutrition, and more. We therefore also saw this health fair as an opportunity to leverage our individual skills and areas of expertise toward the collective goal of empowering communities with information.

                                    Discussion with our CBO revealed that these types of efforts are most successful when women and mothers in the community are the primary audience, as they often decide to bring their families to participate. Also, a multidimensional experience that invites discourse and engagement through interactive learning opportunities, appeals to those of all ages, and offers tangible, thoughtfully selected prizes can be more effective than passive learning. Furthermore, having honest and direct conversations is at the core of growing the patient-physician relationship.

                                    Before the development of our communication skill-building sessions and OSCEs with standardized patients, we took inventory of existing models within the medical school curriculum. Our pedagogical values include active learning, reflective practice (Schon, 1984), and deliberate practice (Ericsson et al., 2018), which promote attainment of enduring competence in learned skills. Additionally, the Ask, Respond, Tell framework (Chou, 2017), teachback (Schillinger et al., 2003), motivational interviewing (Miller & Rollnick, 2012), and shared decision making (Alston et al., 2014)—which have been shown to be the backbone of collaborative patient physician relationships—are key curricular threads taught to our medical students early in their academic careers (Figures 2a and 2b). These models are dually applicable because they are also fundamental communication strategies for combating vaccine misinformation (Cole et al., 2019).

                                    A theory-based approach: Ask, Respond, Tell (ARTS)
                                    Theory-based models for patient engagement

                                    Our students go through a multistation OSCE approximately every 12 weeks throughout first, second, and third years of the educational program. A set of communication skills are assessed during every OSCE station from our “core communications checklist.” During the first year of medical school, significant variability is observed in student performance in this area. All students get close to “competence” during their second year (except for rare outliers), and by their third year we see, after an initial dip in communication competency most likely due to cognitive overload, the rebound and maintenance of skills. This has taught us that communication skill development, which is critical to addressing misinformation, benefits from spaced learning and an interweaving of concepts and skills assessed.

                                    Although our team consists of clinicians with the professional expertise to engage in conversations about vaccine information and misinformation and to hold these conversations with their own patients, our next steps were to collaborate with experts in communication on vaccine misinformation. Through these discussions, team members identified gaps in the pre-existing curricular activities and uncovered important ways to develop the new sessions. Further, medical student consultants were able to reflect firsthand on the perceived effectiveness of existing curricular sessions. Using both expert content opinion and direct learner experiences has allowed for well-rounded discussions on the creation of the vaccine misinformation curricular content. This has offered us an important insight, emphasizing the need for collaboration with multiple parties, each at different stages in their careers, education, and background. The combination of perspective from clinicians, medical students, communication experts, and community leaders has allowed us to identify our gaps, fill them, and begin to develop innovative lesson plans, OSCEs, and JiTTs.

                                    By first identifying the strengths of our existing curriculum, we were able to adapt these existing models, rather than creating new models, maximizing our time and resources. Further, using logistical practices, such as delegation of roles among team members and bimonthly meetings with agenda setting, has allowed for efficient teamwork and task prioritization.

                                    In summary, the prevalence and perpetuation of misinformation that has occurred in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic has left patients vulnerable. We seek to address these concerns through our ongoing goals of skill-building and conversational competency improvement among practitioners. We hope to highlight the importance of leveraging existing curricular strengths and the value of collaboration between team members, patients, and CBOs.

                                    Addressing Vaccine Misinformation: An Online Motivational Interviewing Module and Telehealth Standardized Patient Exercise to Address Misinformation With COVID-19 Vaccine–Hesitant Individuals

                                    Lexie Morales,1 J. Mark Saunders,1 Emiri Uchiyama,1 Laura Fothergill,1 Deborah Sherman,2 and Rebecca L. Toonkel1

                                    1Florida International University, Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine

                                    2Florida International University, Nicole Wertheim College of Nursing

                                    Background

                                    Despite the efficacy and availability of vaccines against COVID-19, a substantial percentage of the US population remains unvaccinated. Unfortunately, unvaccinated individuals now comprise most of those hospitalized with severe disease (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, n.d.). Data suggest that many of these individuals are vaccine hesitant but not completely opposed to vaccination (El-Mohandes et al., 2021). Many factors, including the spread of scientific misinformation, may contribute to vaccine hesitancy (Southwell et al., 2022). Misinformation about COVID-19 is abundant, available through various sources, and found in many forms (Simon et al., 2020). To address misinformation about COVID-19 vaccination most effectively without causing unintended consequences (such as defensiveness or blame) for vaccine-hesitant individuals, health-care providers must be able to engage with each individual’s particular concerns regardless of the source of the concern or its basis in fact (Southwell et al., 2019).

                                    The World Health Organization supports the use of motivational interviewing in the general vaccine-hesitant population (Gagneur, 2020), but little is known about its use with COVID-19 vaccine–hesitant individuals (Gabarda & Butterworth, 2021). Preliminary data from the Herbert Wertheim College of Medicine suggest that at least 40 percent of medical students are not confident in their ability to counsel COVID-19 vaccine–hesitant individuals. Though data are not available from other health professions students, similar rates are likely. To address this unmet need, we developed a highly interactive online module that addresses health misinformation by teaching basic motivational interviewing competencies, how to identify vaccine-hesitant individuals, how to use the “Ask-Tell-Ask” model to effectively share information, and how to set SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, and Time-Bound) goals to move closer to vaccine acceptance (Epton et al., 2017).

                                    Project Descriptions

                                    In addition to an online module that provides and assesses knowledge necessary to engage meaningfully with vaccine-hesitant individuals, our curriculum also requires learners to engage in a telehealth-style standardized patient encounter in which they must employ the communication and telehealth competencies necessary for optimal health-care delivery in a post-COVID world. After the standardized patient encounter, a structured self-reflection activity reinforces self-directed learning skills. Finally, trained learners are invited as members of interprofessional teams to put their skills to use at organized community-based activities to interact with potentially vaccine-hesitant individuals.

                                    Insights and Lessons Learned

                                    Some challenges faced in the implementation of this program included issues accessing technology, scheduling standardized patient encounters due to the many participating programs, and keeping pace with rapidly evolving information about COVID-19. First, we struggled to develop a version of the online platform that learners could easily access at multiple sittings without having to repeat completed activities. Initial beta tests of the online module revealed that many students preferred to complete it in blocks and therefore lost completed data upon logging out. This problem was solved by developing SCORM (Sharable Content Object Reference Model) versions of the module embedded in each program’s course homepage of the university’s learning management system (Canvas).

                                    Another problem we encountered was implementing standardized patient scheduling while scaling the reach of the program. Although the module was initially offered to medical students, we expanded our reach to include students from other allied health professional programs including the Master in Physician Assistant Studies; Graduate Nursing; Physical Therapy, Occupational Therapy, and Speech and Language Pathology; and the Graduate Certificate in Molecular and Biomedical Sciences programs. Allotting time for students to complete the module and the standardized patient exercise without interfering with their required coursework was initially difficult. To address this issue, a Google document with available standardized patient timeslots was embedded in the online module. This allowed learners to select and reserve a time that worked best for them.

                                    Finally, because of the rapidly changing epidemiology of COVID-19, initial resources developed for community outreach required changes. Student leaders spearheading community outreach efforts found that information regarding risks, treatments, and vaccination recommendations often changed, causing information to be outdated. Rather than printing most materials, we have developed QR codes linked to frequently updated public sites to ensure that information provided is timely.

                                    Several important and generalizable lessons have been learned through the implementation of the program. First, communication between team members is essential. Early and frequent communication with our information technology team helped to fix several technical issues in the roll out of the module. Also, coordination with heads of other allied health schools allowed us to increase the reach of the program and to address scheduling challenges.

                                    A second lesson learned is the importance of flexibility. Although we could not predict every problem that would arise and had extensively planned our online rollout, unforeseen scheduling problems and login issues occurred. The ability to recalibrate quickly as problems developed was critical.

                                    Finally, while our project focuses on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy, we have learned that the skills taught, and the method employed to teach them, may be used to address vaccine hesitancy more generally. As the pandemic wanes, we hope to use similar methods to address misinformation around vaccine administration in the pediatric population.

                                    Mitigating Medical Misinformation and Mistrust Through Effective Team Communication Using Innovative, Competency-Based Interprofessional Instructional Design

                                    Alison M. Vargovich,1 Nicholas M. Fusco,2 Kelly Foltz-Ramos,3 Jessica Kruger,4 and William A. Prescott, Jr.2

                                    1University at Buffalo Jacobs School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences

                                    2University at Buffalo School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences

                                    3University at Buffalo School of Nursing

                                    4University at Buffalo School of Public Health and Health Professions

                                    Background

                                    The World Health Organization named vaccine hesitancy as a top-ten threat to public health in 2019 (World Health Organization, 2019), and the US Surgeon General issued a warning to the American public about the urgent threat of health misinformation in 2021 (Office of the Surgeon General, 2021). In today’s information age, both valid and misleading information about vaccines are readily available on the internet. Social networks can influence perspectives on vaccination (Brunson, 2013; Southwell, 2013), and some individuals misplace trust in professionals outside of health care, those estranged from their medical profession, and nonvetted sources of information (Freed et al., 2011).

                                    Health-care professionals and health professions students will encounter patients and parents who are vaccine hesitant. Trust between patients, families, and health-care professionals; effective communication skills; and an understanding of how to address concerns are keys to improving vaccine acceptance. Health profession students can take an active role addressing vaccine hesitancy and misinformation through community outreach and clinical experiences.

                                    To equip students to influence change, it is important to explain the prevalence of medical misinformation, theory regarding patients’ stages of change (e.g., Prochaska & DiClemente, 1994), and strategies to communicate health information and dispel misinformation. Our goal was to develop a competency-based educational experience for health professions students to develop these skills.

                                    Project Description

                                    Our educational innovation is competency-based, interprofessional, and employs a hybrid instructional design strategy. Competency-based education ensures that students possess the required knowledge, skills, and attitudes at completion. To address misinformation and vaccine hesitancy, we employ evidence-based communication practices informed by the Transtheoretical Model (Miller & Rollnick, 2012) and underlying change factors of self-efficacy, motivation, and interpersonal alliance (Britt et al., 2004), with a clinical focus on motivational interviewing (Gagneur, 2020; Zolezzi et al., 2021) and brief intervention strategies (Leask et al., 2012). These factors and tools support what is needed for belief updating when discussing beliefs formed due to cognitive, social, and affective drivers, as is most often the case for vaccine hesitancy (Ecker et al., 2022).

                                    Our hybrid instructional design strategy includes three components: (1) asynchronous online modules, (2) virtual simulations, and (3) in-person high-fidelity simulations. The asynchronous online learning consists of short, pre-recorded modules summarizing: (1) the infodemic and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, (2) vaccine hesitancy, (3) the value of an interprofessional approach to combating medical misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and (4) evidence-based communication practices informed by the Transtheoretical Model (e.g., motivational interviewing). Students will have access to these modules through our learning management system and will complete them before advancing to the virtual simulations.

                                    We designed two virtual simulation scenarios to allow students to apply knowledge and practice communication strategies introduced in the asynchronous online learning. Students receive feedback in real time and complete guided self-reflection questions. These modules are also available online and are offered to students before their advancement to the in-person high-fidelity simulation.

                                    We designed three in-person, high-fidelity simulation scenarios with standardized actors portraying patients or clients with various levels of willingness to engage in education pertaining to vaccines and the COVID-19 pandemic. The in-person simulation scenarios allow students to implement communication strategies introduced in the asynchronous online learning and reinforced during the virtual simulations. Students work in pairs with a student from a health professions program different from their own and complete all three scenarios, followed by a structured, interprofessional debriefing session where students will receive feedback on their performance.

                                    Insights and Lessons Learned

                                    In developing this activity, we have contemplated our assessment strategy and carefully considered the focus and intention of our outcome measures. Originally, our assessment plan included student self-assessment data, along with standardized actor assessment of student performance for all student participants. We felt these data would be useful in understanding student growth that may or may not have occurred because of participating in the experience. However, these measures do not necessarily give us information on whether our methodology or approach is the optimal way to teach and develop these skills in part because of potential bias in self-report.

                                    After much discussion, we decided to split our cohort into two groups to allow comparison of performance. Students will complete the same self-assessment instrument; however, they will receive the educational materials differently. The first group will receive the online, asynchronous modules and the virtual simulation scenarios at the same time and will be allowed to navigate freely between the two before advancing to the in-person simulation. They have the option of completing the asynchronous, online modules only, the virtual simulation only, or both. The second group will receive the content sequentially: the asynchronous, online modules first, then the virtual simulation, and then advancing to the in-person simulation. The question that we are seeking to answer here is whether there is a benefit to student performance in the in-person simulation with completing the pre-work in a structured, sequential manner as we have traditionally taught in our respective curricula, or whether there is no difference between the two approaches. This, we believe, will better inform us about our pedagogical approach, which in addition to our other assessment data, will be useful for advancing knowledge in this area.

                                    We also can comment on resource investment relative to the project results to date. To develop the educational materials (online modules, virtual simulations, and in-person simulations) the investigators met 1 hour per week during the study period (5 months), for a total of approximately 20 hours. Filming, editing, and publishing the virtual scenarios took approximately 10 hours. Preparing the in-person simulation scenarios, including training the standardized actors, took approximately 8 hours. Hosting the in-person simulation scenarios occurred across two sessions, totaling approximately 6 hours of effort and a monetary expense of $1,800. Therefore, approximately 45–50 hours of faculty effort were spent on this project, and $1,800 were required for 51 students to participate. From the students’ perspective, approximately 2–3 hours are required to complete all three elements of the instructional design.

                                    Moving forward, as the educational materials are more fully developed, faculty effort will be directed mostly toward in-person simulation and debriefing. The monetary cost of using our simulation center is also something that requires a budget; however, there may be opportunities to reduce costs by being strategic with scheduling. For example, adding more standardized actors, and therefore increasing the capacity of students to participate during the same simulation would be more cost effective than scheduling an entirely different session. In sum, the costs of the initial stage of the project are not insignificant; however, the experience has been positive and important for those involved.

                                    Addressing COVID-19 Misinformation in Maine Through Collaborative Learning and Interprofessional Education

                                    Jennifer Hayman,1, 2 Shelley Cohen Konrad,3 Linda Chaudron,1, 2 Christine Mallar,1 Grace Price,1 Brendan Prast,1 Julia Safarik,4 and Leah Mallory1

                                    1Maine Medical Center

                                    2Tufts University School of Medicine–Maine Track

                                    3University of New England Center for Excellence in Collaborative Education

                                    4Maine Health Department of Medical Education

                                    Background

                                    Vaccine-specific and general misinformation and disinformation have impeded compliance with preventive measures to slow the spread of COVID-19. Studies on vaccine hesitancy show that approaches that directly refute misperceptions have little impact on shifting attitudes (Nowak et al., 2020; Smith, 2022 ). Studies evaluating effective communication to allay COVID misinformation support use of real-life examples, emphasizing community benefits as effective strategies (Betsch et al., 2017). Effective communication may include motivational interviewing, which has been successful in fostering health-related changes in nutrition, physical activity, behavioral health, and smoking cessation (Gagneur et al., 2019; Lee et al., 2016). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommends vaccine-related communication be delivered by trusted care teams, community health workers, and community agencies (Nowak et al., 2020).

                                    Modern health-care delivery relies upon interprofessional teams. Promoting interdisciplinary collaboration among physicians, nurses, social workers, and advanced practice providers is essential to deliver effective care. Also critical to promoting individual and public health is how prepared all team members are to deliver consistent information to patients operating under health misinformation (Efua Sackey, Markey, & Grealish, 2022) and to address colleagues whose ambivalence or distrust of the science interferes with health-care practice (Li et al., 2022) and team cohesion.

                                    Project Description

                                    Having knowledge of mitigation strategies to dispel health and vaccine misinformation and recognizing the importance of having a trained team delivering a unified message to patients, we sought to better understand the experience of interprofessional health-care students in clinical encounters with their communities and families. We hypothesize that real-life examples provide insight into experiential learning opportunities and serve as a basis for developing scripting strategies and other educational materials for practitioners to improve communication with patients and colleagues misinformed about COVID-19. These strategies are likely generalizable to other areas of medical misinformation. Ultimately, we seek to create an online curriculum addressing misinformation when talking to patients or other health-care workers that includes didactic and video exemplars using motivational interviewing and other behaviorally based conversation techniques.

                                    To maximize interprofessional input and strategy, Tufts University School of Medicine–Maine Track partnered with the University of New England’s Center for Excellence in Collaborative Education. Initial steps included: (1) performing a literature review of what is currently known on COVID-19 misinformation; (2) conducting focus groups of interprofessional health-care students from two schools of medicine and health sciences education (allopathic and osteopathic medical, social work, physician assistant, and rehab medicine students); (3) conducting qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to identify drivers of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy; and (4) comparing identified themes to already published data.

                                    Insights and Lessons Learned

                                    Reviewing the literature and focus group data revealed congruence with vaccine acceptance data from the H1N1 and Ebola pandemics, which demonstrated seven areas of influence: (1) demographic factors, (2) trust in health authorities, (3) safety and efficacy of a new vaccine, (4) personal responsibility and risk perceptions, (5) lack of information or misinformation, (6) accessibility and cost, and (7) mitigation measures taken based on decision to vaccinate (Truong, Bakshi, Wasim, Ahmad, & Majid, 2022; Abba-Aji, Stuckler, Galea, & McKee, 2022). Table 1 outlines ideas that highlight nuances related to these factors raised by health professions students.

                                    Themes and descriptions from literature and focus group analysis
                                    Theme Description
                                    Concept of individualism vs. collectivism General observation that patients without hesitancy mention protecting others as an incentive; those with hesitancy consider it a personal choice, not a public duty or need.
                                    Principle of individual (body) autonomy Participants described patients valuing full agency in health-care matters (i.e., “my body, my choice”).
                                    Disparate recommendations or modeling behavior from health-care professionals Participants offered examples of providers who rejected Centers for Disease Control and Prevention/national guidelines and thus confused patients and colleagues about the need for vaccination and other risk mitigation.
                                    Information sources, including social media, that reflect family or friend influence as well as research mining to support a personal belief General observation that with this emerging disease, the general public seems less likely to follow health-care provider recommendations and more likely to listen to people not trained in health care, public health, or science. Given the breadth of both factual information and personal opinion on the internet, it is easy for an individual to find the “proof” they need to justify their choices and opinions.
                                    Fear, including general health-care anxiety and lack of trust in a new intervention Fear of receiving a relatively untested vaccine took the form of avoidance of inoculations.
                                    Ineffective and constantly changing messaging from the scientific community Students noted that patient and colleague hesitancy was exacerbated by the confusion caused by rapidly changing messages and guidelines for COVID-19 risk mitigation.
                                    Being unprepared to address difficult conversations Lack of training to conduct difficult patient/provider conversations plus limited knowledge about the virus and time constraints led to feeling unprepared to directly address misinformation.
                                    Use of judgmental language Participants observed the use of pointed language that alienated rather than engaged patients hesitant to pursue risk mitigation (i.e., “if you had gotten a vaccine, you may not have ended up in the hospital”).
                                    Mistrust of science, government, health professionals, sometimes including conspiracy theory Participants observed that patients who had concern for unfounded claims, like the vaccine contains a microchip, may have general distrust of government and other authorities.
                                    History of racism and other implicit bias in medical care and research contribute to mistrust Historical mistreatment of underrepresented populations in this country skews perceived intentions of health-care recommendations.
                                    Preference for alternative therapies perceived to be more natural General observations that patients perceived less risk to supplements and older medications, even if not studied for COVID-19, due to a sense that they are inherently safer than a pharmaceutical company–derived product.

                                    Experiential observations from the student focus groups resonated with published literature (Earnshaw & Katz, 2020) and informed educational curriculum and standardized patient encounter scripting. As we construct a curriculum consisting of didactic information on COVID-19 paired with examples of motivational interviewing approaches in the clinical setting, we will incorporate focus group suggestions for strategies to employ and avoid when communicating about misinformation (see Table 2).

                                    Overview of communication strategies supported in literature and/or by health professions students’ experiential observations
                                    Strategies to Employ Strategies to Avoid
                                    Using easy-to-understand (plain) language Using medical jargon
                                    Explaining basic description of vaccine mechanism Arguing with unfounded, popular misinformation (e.g., vaccine changes DNA)
                                    Personally providing patients sources of reliable information (e.g., information from health systems, CDC, WHO) Leaving patients to find information on websites or other sources on their own
                                    Building relationships to create a psychologically safe space Engaging in difficult conversations in time-limited situations
                                    Exploring the impact of cultural differences on health-care choices and not making assumptions:
                                    “Some communities or cultures have strong beliefs about the health system, medications, vaccines, etc. Although you certainly can't speak for an entire community or culture, would you like to share some thoughts about the impact of culture on health care choices?”
                                    Dismissing the perspectives of historically marginalized patients or individuals from different cultures:
                                    “Your community doesn’t understand that vaccines won’t hurt you—they will only help.”
                                    Endorsing patients’ agency in health-care decision making:
                                    “You are the best decision maker for yourself, and I am here to provide more information if you are interested.”
                                    Using messaging that is binary and without room for compromise:
                                    “You work with immune compromised people, so you must wear a mask at all times.”
                                    Using empathy to deliver accurate information in response to patients’ fears:
                                    “I hear what you are saying and can tell this is important.”
                                    Using dismissive language and postures in responding to unfounded fears:
                                    “There is no reason to worry about ‘x’ because you are not high risk.”
                                    Acknowledging humility, curiosity, own knowledge gaps:
                                    “I have not heard about that side effect. Let’s look it up together and find reliable information.”
                                    Speaking with absolute certainty:
                                    “There is no conceivable way that your new symptom is a side effect of the vaccine.”
                                    Notes: CDC = Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; WHO = World Health Organization

                                    In summary, our initial experiences with this project provided an ideal opportunity to understand a broad range of health professions perspectives on health misinformation. By identifying themes emerging from interprofessional focus groups, we identified a range of ideas and specific examples that support previous health misinformation research but also provide more specific and nuanced information that will be useful in developing targeted interprofessional curriculum and standardized patient scenarios.

                                    Based upon the information gained, our team developed an open access, online curriculum including didactic as well as exemplar video interactions and collaboratively sponsored a pandemic misinformation symposium available to a broad range of health-care and community professionals. In the next steps of our work, standardized patient trainers and medical script writers collaborating with physician misinformation content experts will work to improve the authenticity of the actor interactions.

                                    In creating the curricula described here, the importance of interprofessional collaboration—including collaboration between patient-facing staff and those who do not directly interact with patients—cannot be overstated. Together, we intend to address patient misinformation thoughtfully, with humility, and in ways that are respectful of patient experiences.

                                    Training Interprofessional Teams to Improve Scientific Communication and Address Health Misinformation in Chicago Communities Using Social Media

                                    Aashna Sunderrajan,1 Sara Serritella,1 Nicole L. Pierce,1 Olabisi Falana,1 Eve Bloomgarden,2 Shika Jain,3 Lisa Mordell,4 and Vineet Arora1

                                    1University of Chicago

                                    2NorthShore University HealthSystem

                                    3University of Illinois

                                    4Loyola University Chicago

                                    Background

                                    Doctors, nurses, and pharmacists play a key role in providing public education on disease prevention and reducing the spread of misinformation. Nurses, doctors, and pharmacists have been voted the first, second, and fourth most trusted professions in the United States (Saad, 2022), respectively. Because of their access to patients (Choi, Skrine Jeffers, & Logsdon, 2020; Marwitz, 2021) health-care professionals have the opportunity to begin a dialog with their patients and provide critical education to improve patient safety and public health. In fact, during the COVID-19 pandemic, tweets containing personal pleas by health-care professionals were perceived to be more effective in shaping attitudes toward the pandemic and were more likely to be shared when compared with formal tweets by policy officials (Solnick et al., 2021).

                                    Unfortunately, health-care professionals are reluctant to engage in social media publicly because of a fear of retribution from their employer (Way, 2020) or because of concerns of being attacked (Pendergrast et al., 2021). Given the status of health professionals as trusted messengers, it is critical to consider how to empower them to speak up against medical misinformation despite the challenges and risks they may incur (Ioannidis, Stuart, Brownlee, & Strite, 2017).

                                    With these ideas in mind, the Illinois Medical Professionals Action Collaborative Team (IMPACT, 2022) developed a pilot elective for first-year medical students at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine entitled, “Improving Scientific Communication and Battling Medical Misinformation.” In this course, students were taught how to apply scientific communication principles to identify and address COVID-19 misinformation, focusing on digital and visual communication skills (Chou, Oh, & Klein, 2018). Students also were tasked with creating infographics—applying techniques taught in the lecture series—that subsequently were published on Twitter, eliciting approximately 30,000 impressions (Arora, 2021).

                                    Building on the success of this program, our goal was to lead the development, implementation, and evaluation of an interdisciplinary curriculum—with leaders from medicine, nursing, and pharmacy—that would amplify health-care professionals’ voices and offer them strategies to disseminate evidence-based information to combat misinformation and medical mistrust in their communities.

                                    Project Description

                                    Over the course of a few months, we adapted our existing curriculum to coach health-care professionals on how to identify what misinformation is, where it is coming from, and to provide evidence to the contrary for their patients and communities. This involved (1) didactic lectures on the importance of addressing misinformation in the clinician-patient relationship, the science of storytelling techniques and strategic communications, and the impact of leveraging a group identity to amplify on social media; as well as (2) workshopping sessions where health-care professionals learned to identify misinformation common in their communities, use evidence-based approaches to address these misconceptions, and then disseminate their work on social media and other platforms.

                                    To cater to the needs of our interprofessional group, we made three key changes from our original curriculum. First, because of the short time frame, we condensed our original curriculum into a 3-week course, placing a heavier emphasis on students’ active learning through workshops. Second, because of our students’ dissimilar work schedules, we pivoted to a fully virtual course, held over the lunch hour. Finally, because we wanted to foster an interprofessional environment, we had students work in groups on their projects, with breakout rooms facilitating collaboration.

                                    Insights and Lessons Learned

                                    Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Curriculum

                                    To develop and implement our curriculum, it was imperative that we had an interdisciplinary team of leaders to plan, administer, and participate in the course. Perhaps because of the prominence of misinformation in the current discourse, we found that collaboration across academic boundaries was welcomed, and we were able to form a team of leaders, including the dean of medical education (Vineet Arora), a science communication expert (Sara Serritella), a nursing manager (Nicole Pierce), and a pharmacy education manager (Olabisi Falana).

                                    An interdisciplinary curriculum is characterized by the interweaving of disciplines to teach a subject from multiple perspectives. In our case, this involved identifying the misinformation prevalent in medicine, nursing, and pharmacy; the unique barriers professionals from these fields may have to addressing misinformation; and the different approaches professionals can take to combat these misperceptions with their patients and communities. For example, each of our groups picked topics that reflected their clinical experience, including a dermatologist who led a project on the importance of sunscreen and a pharmacist who led a project on the safety of over-the-counter medications. Early comments from students in this course recognized the benefits of such a curriculum, emphasizing that learning and retention are enhanced when course content is meaningful and relevant.

                                    Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Methods

                                    To cater to the different demands on our medical, nursing, and pharmacy professionals participating in our curriculum, we relied on a combination of synchronous and asynchronous methods. Zoom sessions provided a classroom experience where students learned from didactic teaching. Breakout rooms then offered interactive spaces for students to engage in real-time, collaborative discussion and learning. Recordings of each lecture, including resources discussed, were then made available on Box for students, including those who were unable to attend the Zoom sessions, to access asynchronously.

                                    Although the asynchronous approach offered flexibility, those who primarily relied on this method missed out on opportunities to learn interactively, by engaging with the lecturers and collaborating with their peers. As people learn most and best retain knowledge through exploration and application of that knowledge, it is likely that those who missed this opportunity did not gain as much out of this curriculum. This can be a drawback of asynchronous methods and requires an exploration of how to make this approach more engaging and interactive.

                                    Future deployment of training also raises issues of scalability and reach. Some readers may be interested in possibilities for measuring reach and engagement for efforts like this; Rotolo et al. (2022) explores reach and engagement measurement for social media efforts like ours.

                                    Professional Differences in Pedagogy

                                    Our curriculum involved a combination of didactic teaching and workshops. The lectures provided students with a foundation on how to improve scientific communication and address misinformation; the workshops provided students an opportunity to become active participants and apply that knowledge in a context with which they were familiar. During this course, however, we found differences in pedagogical preferences based on profession, with some preferring one type of learning over the other. For example, medical students preferred to receive direct didactic information, while those from nursing and pharmacy often preferred to participate in interactive workshops. This led to variable attendance during the sessions.

                                    Although we encouraged students to share their infographics on social media, sharing was ultimately each student’s personal choice, and we found differences in how students decided to share their infographics. For instance, medical students often selected to address myths found in their communities of practice and used Instagram as their dissemination platform. Pharmacy and nursing students, however, often selected to address myths held by their patients, and thus, decided to turn their infographics into fliers that they could directly hand out. Going forward, it will be important to understand what the different pedagogical needs are for each profession, and how best we can meet them in a course such as ours to keep engagement high.

                                    This project shows that it is possible to work collaboratively on the development and implementation of an interdisciplinary curriculum to tackle misinformation with health-care professionals. However, consideration of the aims of the curriculum and the core audience is necessary to determine how to implement the course, including whether to prioritize a flexible or an interactive course and use didactic or workshop components. Overall, though, our experiences show that health professionals have vast interest and need to learn more about addressing misinformation, and thus, continued work in this area is imperative.

                                    Observations Across Projects

                                    Brian G. Southwell, Andrea Anderson, Anne Berry, Kamilah Weems, and Lisa Howley

                                    What can we learn from these reflections? Several themes evident in these essays hold practical implications for medical schools and health professions educators considering how to address misinformation through curricular innovation. For example, consider the following:

                                    • Interprofessional education is valuable, and yet differentiation and coordination are critical when developing curricular interventions to train a wide range of learners. Students being trained for different types of health professions jobs face different constraints in terms of incentives, scheduling logistics, and even the nature of patient encounters.

                                    • Effective integration, timing, and convenience matter. Several project teams acknowledged the importance of recognizing how busy faculty and students are and how much information they face in any given day. Tools that support efficient integration into existing curricula and clinical learning experiences, such as the Hofstra/Northwell team’s Just in Time Teaching Tool, can provide easy-to-digest and useful tips moments before or during a patient encounter.

                                    • Using exhaustive fact-checking and direct misinformation correction as a primary strategy for patient engagement can be challenging and may not be as effective as other approaches, especially in situations like that posed by the COVID-19 pandemic, in which available information and empirical evidence shifts quickly. Finding ways to educate patients about the nature of science and discovery and steer patients to credible sources of information that are regularly updated may be as important as providing point-by-point correction of misinformation.

                                    Undoubtedly, misinformation is a salient and pressing focus of concern among health professionals. Programs that train those professionals can provide important support, and yet it is also clear that revising and improving medical school curricula to meet this concern will require patience, consistent effort, and careful planning to encourage long-term patient engagement strategies that the next generations of health-care professionals can systematically adopt and implement.

                                    Acknowledgments

                                    This collection of essays was funded in part by a cooperative agreement between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC) entitled “AAMC Improving Clinical and Public Health Outcomes through National Partnerships to Prevent and Control Emerging and Re-Emerging Infectious Disease Threats” (Federal Award Identification Number: NU50CK000586). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is an agency within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The information in this collection of essays does not necessarily represent the policy of CDC or HHS and should not be considered an endorsement by the Federal government.

                                    The editors would like to thank Annie Gering, Elizabeth Glennie, and Anna Wetterberg of RTI Press along with anonymous reviewers for their efforts to refine and publish this paper.

                                    References

                                    Abba-Aji, M., Stuckler, D., Galea, S., & McKee, M. (2022). Ethnic/racial minorities’ and migrants’ access to COVID-19 vaccines: A systematic review of barriers and facilitators. Journal of Migration and Health, 5, 100086. 10.1016/j.jmh.2022.10008635194589
                                    Abbasi, J. (2021). COVID-19 conspiracies and beyond: How physicians can deal with patients’ misinformation. Journal of the American Medical Association, 325(3), 208–210. 10.1001/jama.2020.2201833377900
                                    Alston, C., Berger, Z., Brownlee, S., Elwyn, G., Fowler, F. J., Jr., Hall, L. K., Montori, V. M., Moulton, B., Paget, L., Haviland-Shebel, B., Singerman, R., Walker, J., Wynia, M. K., & Henderson, D. (2014). Shared decision-making strategies for best care: Patient decision aids. NAM Perspectives. National Academy of Medicine.
                                    Arora, V. [@FutureDocs]. (2021, June 3). Inspired by @PeterHotez #grandrounds, we started a pilot elective to teach #scicomm & debunking #misinformation to @uchipritzker medstudents Each student [Tweet]. Twitter. https://twitter.com/FutureDocs/status/1400594292062687233
                                    Betsch, C., Böhm, R., Korn, L., & Holtmann, C. (2017). On the benefits of explaining herd immunity in vaccine advocacy. Nature Human Behaviour, 1(3), 0056.
                                    Britt, E., Hudson, S. M., & Blampied, N. M. (2004). Motivational interviewing in health settings: A review. Patient Education and Counseling, 53(2), 147–155. 10.1016/S0738-3991(03)00141-115140454
                                    Brunson, E. K. (2013). The impact of social networks on parents’ vaccination decisions. Pediatrics, 131(5), e1397–e1404. 10.1542/peds.2012-245223589813
                                    Cassara, M., DeVoe, B., Fornari, A., Kwiatkowski, T., & Gallo, K. (2014). A description of the integration of interprofessional collaborative practice competencies in the first 100 weeks of medical student education. Medical Science Educator, 24(3), 333–338. 10.1007/s40670-014-0057-7
                                    Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC Covid data tracker. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-total-admin-rate-total
                                    Choi, K. R., Skrine Jeffers, K., & Logsdon, M. C. (2020). Nursing and the novel coronavirus: Risks and responsibilities in a global outbreak. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 76(7), 1486–1487. 10.1111/jan.1436932202336
                                    Chou, C. M. (2017). Skill set three: Delivering diagnoses and treatment plans. In C. M. Chou & L. Cooley (Eds.), Communication Rx: Transforming healthcare through relationship-centered communication (pp. 50–52). McGraw-Hill Education.
                                    Chou, W. S., Oh, A., & Klein, W. M. P. (2018). Addressing health-related misinformation on social media. Journal of the American Medical Association, 320(23), 2417–2418. 10.1001/jama.2018.1686530428002
                                    Cole, S., Weiner, J. S., Pearlman, R. S. (2019, October 27–30). The Three Function Model of Medical Communication (TFM-4): A foundational template for patient-centered care. Presented at Planetree International Conference on Person-Centered Care, Orlando, FL.
                                    Earnshaw, V. A., & Katz, I. T. (2020). Educate, amplify, and focus to address COVID-19 misinformation. JAMA Health Forum, 1(4), e200460. 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2020.046036218618
                                    Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Fazio, L. K., Brashier, N., Kendeou, P., Vraga, E. K., & Amazeen, M. A. (2022). The psychological drivers of misinformation belief and its resistance to correction. Nature Reviews Psychology, 1(1), 13–29. 10.1038/s44159-021-00006-y
                                    Efua Sackey, M., Markey, K., & Grealish, A. (2022). Healthcare professional’s promotional strategies in improving Human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination uptake in adolescents: A systematic review. Vaccine, 40(19), 2656–2666. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.03.05435367068
                                    El-Mohandes, A., White, T. M., Wyka, K., Rauh, L., Rabin, K., Kimball, S. H., Ratzan, S. C., & Lazarus, J. V. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine acceptance among adults in four major US metropolitan areas and nationwide. Scientific Reports, 11(1), 21844. 10.1038/s41598-021-00794-634737319
                                    Epton, T., Currie, S., & Armitage, C. J. (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(12), 1182–1198. 10.1037/ccp000026029189034
                                    Ericsson, K. A., Hoffman, R. R., Kozbelt, A., & Williams, A. M. (Eds.). (2018). The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316480748
                                    Freed, G. L., Clark, S. J., Butchart, A. T., Singer, D. C., & Davis, M. M. (2011). Sources and perceived credibility of vaccine-safety information for parents. Pediatrics, 127(Suppl 1), S107–S112. 10.1542/peds.2010-1722P21502236
                                    Funk, C., Hefferon, M., Kennedy, B., & Johnson, C. (August 2, 2019). Trust and mistrust in Americans’ views of scientific experts. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2019/08/02/trust-and-mistrust-in-americans-views-of-scientific-experts
                                    Gabarda, A., & Butterworth, S. W. (2021). Using best practices to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: The case for the motivational interviewing approach. Health Promotion Practice, 22(5), 611–615. 10.1177/1524839921101646333966471
                                    Gagneur, A. (2020). Motivational interviewing: A powerful tool to address vaccine hesitancy. Canada Communicable Disease Report, 46(4), 93–97. 10.14745/ccdr.v46i04a0632281992
                                    Gagneur, A., Quach, C., Boucher, F. D., Tapiero, B., De Wals, P., Farrands, A., Lemaitre, T., Boulianne, N., Sauvageau, C., Ouakki, M., Gosselin, V., Gagnon, D., Petit, G., Jacques, M. C., & Dubé, È. (2019). Promoting vaccination in the province of Québec: The PromoVaQ randomized controlled trial protocol. BMC Public Health, 19(1), 160. 10.1186/s12889-019-6468-z30727991
                                    Ginzburg, S. B., Willey, J. M., Bates, C., Santen, S. A., Battinelli, D., & Smith, L. (2019). Applying the hedgehog concept to transform undergraduate medical education. Academic Medicine, 94(4), 477–481. 10.1097/ACM.000000000000256430570497
                                    IMPACT (2022, July 13). IMPACT: Illinois Medical Professionals Action Collaborative Team. https://www.impact4hc.com/
                                    Ioannidis, J. P. A., Stuart, M. E., Brownlee, S., & Strite, S. A. (2017). How to survive the medical misinformation mess. European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 47(11), 795–802. 10.1111/eci.1283428881000
                                    Leask, J., Kinnersley, P., Jackson, C., Cheater, F., Bedford, H., & Rowles, G. (2012). Communicating with parents about vaccination: A framework for health professionals. BMC Pediatrics, 12(1), 154. 10.1186/1471-2431-12-15422998654
                                    Lee, W. W., Choi, K. C., Yum, R. W., Yu, D. S., & Chair, S. Y. (2016). Effectiveness of motivational interviewing on lifestyle modification and health outcomes of clients at risk or diagnosed with cardiovascular diseases: A systematic review. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 53, 331–341. 10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2015.09.01026493130
                                    Lewandowsky, S., Cook, J., Schmid, P., Holford, D. L., Finn, A., Leask, J., Thomson, A., Lombardi, D., Al-Rawi, A. K., Amazeen, M. A., Anderson, E. C., Armaos, K. D., Betsch, C., Bruns, H. H. B., Ecker, U. K. H., Gavaruzzi, T., Hahn, U., Herzog, S., Juanchich, M., . . . Vraga, E. K (2021). The COVID-19 vaccine communication handbook. A practical guide for improving vaccine communication and fighting misinformation. SciBeh. https://hackmd.io/@scibehC19vax/home
                                    Li, P. C., Theis, S. R., Kelly, D., Ocampo, T., Berglund, A., Morgan, D., Markert, R., Fisher, E., & Burtson, K. (2022). Impact of an education intervention on COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in a military base population. Military Medicine, 187(Special Issue_13), e1516–e1522. 10.1093/milmed/usab36334557913
                                    Marwitz, K. K. (2021). The pharmacist’s active role in combating COVID-19 medication misinformation. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 61(2), e71–e74. 10.1016/j.japh.2020.10.02233199166
                                    Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational interviewing: Helping people change (3rd ed.). The Guilford Press.
                                    Nowak, G. J., Evans, N. J., Wojdynski, B. W., Ahn, S. J. G., Len-Rios, M. E., Carera, K., Hale, S., & McFalls, D. (2020). Using immersive virtual reality to improve the beliefs and intentions of influenza vaccine avoidant 18-to-49-year-olds: Considerations, effects, and lessons learned. Vaccine, 38(5), 1225–1233. 10.1016/j.vaccine.2019.11.00931806533
                                    Office of the Surgeon General (OSG). (2021). Confronting health misinformation: The US Surgeon General’s advisory on building a healthy information environment. US Department of Health and Human Services.
                                    Pendergrast, T. R., Jain, S., Trueger, N. S., Gottlieb, M., Woitowich, N. C., & Arora, V. M. (2021). Prevalence of personal attacks and sexual harassment of physicians on social media. JAMA Internal Medicine, 181(4), 550–552. 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.723533393965
                                    Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1994). The transtheoretical approach: crossing traditional boundaries of therapy (Reprint ed.). Krieger Publishing Company.
                                    Rotolo, S. M., Jain, S., Dhaon, S., Dokhanchi, J. K., Kalata, E., Shah, T., Mordell, L. J., Clayman, M. L., Kenefake, A., Zimmermann, L. J., Bloomgarden, E., & Arora, V. M. (2022). A coordinated strategy to develop and distribute infographics addressing COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and misinformation. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association, 62(1), 224–231. 10.1016/j.japh.2021.08.01634483058
                                    Saad, L. (2022, January 12). Military brass, judges among professions at new image lows. Gallup. https://news.gallup.com/poll/388649/military-brass-judges-among-professions-new-image-lows.aspx
                                    Schillinger, D., Piette, J., Grumbach, K., Wang, F., Wilson, C., Daher, C., Leong-Grotz, K., Castro, C., & Bindman, A. B. (2003). Closing the loop: Physician communication with diabetic patients who have low health literacy. Archives of Internal Medicine, 163(1), 83–90. 10.1001/archinte.163.1.8312523921
                                    Schon, D. A. (1984). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action (1st ed.). Basic Books.
                                    Simon, F., Howard, P. N., & Nielsen, R. K. (2020). Types, sources, and claims of COVID-19 misinformation. Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism. https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/types-sources-and-claims-covid-19-misinformation
                                    Smith, R. G. (2022). Clinical data to be used as a foundation to combat Covid-19 vaccine hesitancy. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 26, 100483. 10.1016/j.xjep.2021.10048334926837
                                    Solnick, R. E., Chao, G., Ross, R. D., Kraft-Todd, G. T., & Kocher, K. E. (2021). Emergency physicians and personal narratives improve the perceived effectiveness of COVID19 public health recommendations on social media: A randomized experiment. Academic Emergency Medicine, 28(2), 172–183. 10.1111/acem.1418833263357
                                    Southwell, B. G. (2013). Social networks and popular understanding of science and health: Sharing disparities (1st ed.). Johns Hopkins University Press. 10.1353/book.72103
                                    Southwell, B. G., Brennen, J. S., Paquin, R. S., Boudewyns, V., & Zeng, J. (2022). Defining and measuring scientific misinformation. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 700(1), 98–111. 10.1177/00027162221084709
                                    Southwell, B. G., Niederdeppe, J., Cappella, J. N., Gaysynsky, A., Kelley, D. E., Oh, A., Peterson, E. B., & Chou, W. S. (2019). Misinformation as a misunderstood challenge to public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 57(2), 282–285. 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.00931248741
                                    Truong, J., Bakshi, S., Wasim, A., Ahmad, M., & Majid, U. (2022). What factors promote vaccine hesitancy or acceptance during pandemics? A systematic review and thematic analysis. Health Promotion International, 37(1), daab105. 10.1093/heapro/daab10534244738
                                    Way, K. (2020, April 21). Nurses across the US are getting fired for fighting PPE shortages. Vice. https://www.vice.com/en/article/akwxze/nurses-across-united-states-fired-for-fighting-covid-19-ppe-shortages
                                    Wood, J. L., Lee, G. Y., Stinnett, S. S., & Southwell, B. G. (2021). A pilot study of medical misinformation perceptions and training among practitioners in North Carolina (USA). Inquiry, 58, 469580211035742. 10.1177/0046958021103574234399597
                                    World Health Organization. (2019). Ten threats to global health in 2019. https://www.who.int/news-room/spotlight/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019
                                    Zolezzi, M., Paravattil, B., & El-Gaili, T. (2021). Using motivational interviewing techniques to inform decision-making for COVID-19 vaccination. International Journal of Clinical Pharmacy, 43(6), 1728–1734. 10.1007/s11096-021-01334-y34599721

                                    Click cover to download publication

                                    Sustainable Development Goals

                                    • Goal 3: Good Health and Well Being

                                    Contact

                                    To contact an author or seek permission to use copyrighted content, contact our editorial team

                                    • +1 919 541 6490
                                    • rtipress@rti.org

                                    Meet the Experts

                                    View All Experts
                                    Brian Southwell

                                    Brian G. Southwell

                                    Related Publications

                                    View All Press
                                    METHODS REPORT

                                    Improving text classification with Boolean retrieval for rare categories

                                    Article

                                    COVID-19 diagnosis and SARS-CoV-2 strain identification by a rapid, multiplexed, point-of-care antibody microarray

                                    OCCASIONAL PAPER

                                    Equipping health professions educators to better address medical misinformation

                                    Article

                                    An investigation of age-differentiated conversations about electronic nicotine delivery systems on Reddit

                                    OCCASIONAL PAPER

                                    Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

                                    OCCASIONAL PAPER

                                    Culturally informed community engagement

                                    Article

                                    U.S. women’s knowledge of reproductive biology

                                    RESEARCH REPORT

                                    Substance misuse prevention program attendance

                                    Recent Publications

                                    View All Press
                                    METHODS REPORT

                                    Improving text classification with Boolean retrieval for rare categories

                                    OCCASIONAL PAPER

                                    Bringing an equity-centered framework to research

                                    OCCASIONAL PAPER

                                    The Preschool Entitlement

                                    OCCASIONAL PAPER

                                    Culturally informed community engagement

                                    RTI Logo
                                    Partner With Us
                                    • US Government
                                    • Commercial
                                    • Foundations & Associations
                                    • Multilateral Donors
                                    • Universities
                                    • Suppliers
                                    Site
                                    • Privacy Policy
                                    • Security Policy
                                    • Site Map
                                    • Terms of Use
                                    • Accessibility
                                    • Contact Us
                                    Contact Us
                                    Facebook Icon Twitter Icon Instagram Icon YouTube Icon Linkedin Icon
                                    delivering the promise of science
                                    for global good
                                    RTI Health Solutions RTI Innovation Advisors RTI Health Advance

                                    © 2023 RTI International. RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. RTI and the RTI logo are U.S. registered trademarks of Research Triangle Institute.