An interventional study of Debunking Misinformation through Audio Dramas and Control group audio jingles in Misinformation, sponsored by Karolinska Institutet. Completed at 1 site in Sierra Leone. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-01-22.
Sponsored by Karolinska Institutet · Not applicable, Interventional, and Other
In the Contagious Misinformation Trial the investigators aim to debunk prevalent misinformation about an infectious disease using two evidence-based methods of debunking. The two debunking methods are packaged in two audio dramas of 4 episodes each, which will be sent to the WhatsApp of participants who are randomised to intervention group 1 or 2. The control group will receive audio messages about a different topic. The primary outcome is the reduction in belief in two misinformation statements about the infectious diseases.
719 studies on the registry are indexed under Communication; 159 are open to participants now.
This study's enrollment of 750 is above the median of 144 across 571 interventional studies indexed under Communication.
Browse Communication studies →Karolinska Institutet is the lead sponsor of 1,148 studies on the registry; 276 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Audio messages in this group are focussed on providing a Plausible Alternative to the misinformation
Behavioral: Debunking Misinformation through Audio Dramas
Audio messages in this group focus on Avoiding the Misinformation and instead only provide the correct information
Behavioral: Debunking Misinformation through Audio Dramas
Audio messages in this control group are on a different topic
Behavioral: Control group audio jingles
The audio dramas (one drama of 4 episodes per intervention group), aim to debunk misinformation about an infectious disease. The content of the two dramas differ in the two groups; in intervention group 1, the drama will state the misinformation and provide a plausible alternative, delivered through a trusted source, in line with world views. In intervention group 2, the audio drama will avoid mentioning the misinformation and instead only state the correct information about the infectious disease
The control group will receive audio jingles about exclusive breastfeeding
Change in the belief in misinformation
The change in the belief in misinformation will be measured through Yes/No questions in the baseline and follow-up surveys. Using logistic regression models, the prevalence of the belief in misinformation about 2 aspects of an infectious disease compared to the control group will be analysed using an intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Inadvertent promotion of misinformation: the backfire effect
To test whether the interventions might inadvertently have promoted the belief in misinformation, the same yes/no questions as the primary outcome will be used in ordinal logistic regression models to analyse if the there has been a backfire effect in the intervention groups, compared to the control group.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
As treated analysis of primary outcomes
The Yes/No questions of the primary outcomes will be tested in an as-treated analysis. The investigators will only include participants who can correctly recall the basic storylines of the audio messages.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Knowledge about preventive methods
Using an open question, asking the respondent to name up to 3 preventive methods, a score will be created. For every correct answer, the participants gets a point, and one point is subtracted for every wrong answer; leading to a potential score of -3 to +3. Ordinal logistic regression models will be fitted to compare the scores of the intervention groups with the control group.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Health-related discussions among family/friend
The question asking whether the participant has discussed the content of the audio messages will be used for this analysis, together with the question about how often the participant discussed health issues with family/friends. Logistic regression models will be fitted to test whether the interventions have influenced health-related discussions with family or friends, as compared to the control group.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Method of administration
To understand if the intervention works outside of WhatsApp, 60 additional people will be recruited who do not have WhatsApp. Participants will instead be called and listen to the audio dramas on the phone; 30 will listen to the audio drama of intervention group 1 and 30 will listen to the audio drama of intervention group 2. The two primary outcomes will be analysed similar to the primary outcome analysis (ITT and per protocol) among the 2 groups and compared to the control group, as well as to their equivalent group of respondents with WhatsApp.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Differences in self-efficacy
Participants will answer 3 questions about their perceived self-efficacy on 3 specific preventive behaviours. Answers are on a 5-item scale: from not at all true to exactly true. Ordinal logistic regression models will be specified to test whether the interventions had an influence on people's self-efficacy about three specific preventive behaviours, compared to the control group.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Risk perception & preventive methods
Risk perception about the infectious disease will be measured with a question that asks how likely it is that the participants gets the disease in the next year. A question which asks what kind of actions the participants has undertaken, or is planning to undertake, to prevent infection with the disease - will be used to assess if and what kind of actions are taken. Several analyses will be carried out to test whether the intervention influenced risk perception and preventive methods. Furthermore, analyses will be carried out to determine if the a change in risk perception influenced preventive methods.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
Objective versus subjective learning
In the follow-up survey, there is a question asking if the participant feels like he/she learned from the audio messages (yes/no question). A Chi-Square analysis will be done to determine whether those who feel like they learned also learned objectively, using the two primary outcomes.
Time frame: Up to 2 months
PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.
Plan to share: Yes — After publication of the primary analysis and study results, the anonymised data will be published in a public repository
Supporting information: Statistical analysis plan, Informed consent form
Time frame: January 2022
Ran from Oct 2019 to primary completion in Dec 2019, 2 months.
Of 390 non-industry interventional studies with no phase under Communication, half reached primary completion within 18 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 36. This study's 2 months is below that.
Counting every sponsor, half of 394 studies reached it within 18 months; a quarter within 6 and three quarters within 36.
How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.
This study is completed, as verified in Jan 2020. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.