e.g. mhealth
Search Results (1 to 10 of 269 Results)
Download search results: CSV END BibTex RIS
CSV download: Download all 269 search results
(up to 5,000 articles maximum)
- 104 Journal of Medical Internet Research
- 58 JMIR Infodemiology
- 43 JMIR Formative Research
- 20 JMIR Public Health and Surveillance
- 11 JMIR Dermatology
- 11 JMIR Research Protocols
- 7 JMIRx Med
- 5 JMIR Cancer
- 4 JMIR Human Factors
- 2 JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting
- 1 JMIR AI
- 1 JMIR Aging
- 1 JMIR Medical Education
- 1 JMIR Serious Games
- 0 Medicine 2.0
- 0 Interactive Journal of Medical Research
- 0 iProceedings
- 0 JMIR Medical Informatics
- 0 JMIR mHealth and uHealth
- 0 JMIR Mental Health
- 0 JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies
- 0 JMIR Preprints
- 0 JMIR Bioinformatics and Biotechnology
- 0 JMIR Challenges
- 0 JMIR Diabetes
- 0 JMIR Biomedical Engineering
- 0 JMIR Data
- 0 JMIR Cardio
- 0 Journal of Participatory Medicine
- 0 JMIR Perioperative Medicine
- 0 JMIR Nursing
- 0 JMIRx Bio
- 0 Transfer Hub (manuscript eXchange)
- 0 JMIR Neurotechnology
- 0 Asian/Pacific Island Nursing Journal
- 0 Online Journal of Public Health Informatics
- 0 JMIR XR and Spatial Computing (JMXR)
However, health information on social media and particularly Tik Tok should be viewed with caution, as several studies have shown a high percentage of misinformation on different health issues on social media [14,15]. Specifically regarding ADHD and Tik Tok, Yeung et al [16] have shown that content about ADHD on Tik Tok was predominantly misleading (52%), which includes inaccurate and overgeneralized information.
JMIR Infodemiology 2025;5:e75973
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Vaccination Conversations on X in Spanish and Catalan: Qualitative Content Analysis
The spread of antivaccine misinformation is a significant public health challenge influenced by multiple interconnected factors. SM algorithms prioritize engagement-driven content, often amplifying misleading narratives and creating echo chambers that reinforce vaccine skepticism [5,12,13].
JMIR Infodemiology 2025;5:e67942
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Quality of Cancer-Related Information on New Media (2014-2023): Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Funnel plot and Egger test revealed significant asymmetry (bias coefficient –5.67, 95% CI –9.63 to –1.71; P=.006) only for studies evaluating misinformation, suggesting that studies could be missing in the literature that reported null or negative findings of misinformation or small study effects. No bias was detected for other indicators (Figures S1-S11 in Multimedia Appendix 2).
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e73185
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
The pervasiveness and hyper-accessibility of online health and nutrition content worldwide enable the proliferation of misinformation in growing online environments. Research indicates that the majority of health and nutrition information on the internet and social media is of poor quality and accuracy [1-3].
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e67640
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
However, these platforms are often rife with health-related misinformation that lacks scientific evidence [3]. Compared to accurate health information, misinformation is more likely to reach a wider audience and maintain its influence over time [4].
JMIR Res Protoc 2025;14:e69414
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Stillbirth Discourse on Instagram and X (Formerly Twitter): Content Analysis
This study addresses this gap by systematically analyzing stillbirth content on social media, exploring themes, emotions, sentiments, misinformation, and visual representations.
In this section, we review prior studies that have analyzed social media content relating to miscarriage, abortion, and stillbirth. In addition, we examine research relating to the spread of medical misinformation on social media platforms.
JMIR Infodemiology 2025;5:e73980
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Because a scientific consensus has not yet been reached, these claims were categorized as misinformation. In some cases, this includes exaggeration of research findings. Then, the first and last authors tabulated the total number of phrases identified as misinformation, organized these phrases into overarching misinformation categories, and identified common words within each category.
Simultaneously, we used R (R Core Team) to perform topic modeling with all comments and replies.
JMIR Form Res 2025;9:e76737
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Comparatively, disinformation may be understood as a subset of misinformation, distinguished primarily by its intentionality, which often makes it more insidious and damaging to public trust [40]. Misinformation can be defined as follows [41]:
Misinformation is when false information is shared, but no harm is meant.
JMIR Infodemiology 2025;5:e69474
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Within the domain of misinformation, such stressors include constant exposure to confusing, unreliable, or harmful content online. Understanding resilience in this context is key to designing effective interventions that empower individuals to filter, assess, and reject misinformation.
However, to date, no validated instrument exists to specifically measure resilience to misinformation disseminated via social media, particularly among parents of school-age children.
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e72449
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS
Online Interventions Addressing Health Misinformation: Scoping Review
Misinformation is defined as “false information that is spread, regardless of whether there is intent to mislead” [1]. Misinformation in health and health care contexts has emerged as a significant and growing concern, particularly in the digital age where the spread of information is rapid and often unchecked.
J Med Internet Res 2025;27:e69618
Download Citation: END BibTex RIS