The rise of academic misconduct poses significant challenges to the integrity and credibility of scholarly research. Early-stage investigators (ESIs), particularly those representing marginalized groups, face unique pressures in navigating the \"publish or perish\" paradigm while establishing their careers. This commentary articulates strategies for cultivating research environments conducive to the responsible conduct of research (RCR) for ESIs. By establishing shared values, planning research meticulously, conducting research collaboratively, and reporting findings transparently, ESIs can foster a culture of prevention and accountability in research. Ultimately, navigating beyond traditional methodologies to support RCR necessitates a fundamental reimagining of academic culture, reconceptualizing productivity to prioritize quality over quantity, and to encompass \"invisible\" work often shouldered by investigators with marginalized identities. Addressing scientific misconduct challenges requires a whole-system approach, encompassing individual leadership, policy changes, and institutional accountability. By implementing concrete strategies and systemic reforms, academia can reaffirm its commitment to responsible research conduct and safeguard the integrity of scholarly endeavors.

The potential for reinforcement of unhelpful thinking and feelings of distress was present in half the sentences from the general description of the condition and management recommendation sections in three sources of information describing upper extremity conditions for clinicians.

Relative to the rapid increase in available health information, little has been published on the differential impact misinformation has on the health of communities. Observations during the height of the COVID-19 pandemic indicated there were communities that made decisions that negatively impacted health outcomes beyond expectations; we propose that health misinformation was a contributor to poor health outcomes. Health misinformation exposure varies across communities and preliminary research suggests that some communities are more vulnerable to the impact of health misinformation than others. However, few studies have evaluated the connection between health misinformation and healthcare disparities. In this paper, we (a) review the current literature on misinformation and its impact on health disparities, (b) expand on prior epidemiological models to explain the communal spread of misinformation and the link to disparate health outcomes, (c) identify gaps in knowledge about communal misinformation spread (d) review promising interventions to halt the adverse impact of misinformation.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on different countries because of which various health and safety measures were implemented, with digital media playing a pivotal role. However, digital media also pose significant concerns such as misinformation and lack of direction.
OBJECTIVE: We aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19-related infodemics through digital, social, and electronic media on the vaccine-related attitudes of caregivers and health care providers in Pakistan.
METHODS: This study employs a qualitative exploratory study design with purposive sampling strategies, and it was conducted at 3 primary health care facilities in the province of Sindh, Pakistan. Seven focus group discussions with health care providers and 60 in-depth interviews with caregivers were conducted using semistructured interviews through virtual platforms (ConnectOnCall and Zoom). Transcripts were analyzed through thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Our study reveals the pivotal role of electronic media, mobile health (mHealth), and social media during the COVID-19 pandemic. Four major themes were identified: (1) sources of information on COVID-19 and its vaccination, (2) electronic media value and misleading communication, (3) mHealth leveraging and limitations during COVID-19, and (4) social media influence and barriers during COVID-19. Health care providers and caregivers reported that the common sources of information were electronic media and mHealth, followed by social media. Some participants also used global media for more reliable information related to COVID-19. mHealth solutions such as public awareness messages, videos, call ringtones, and helplines promoted COVID-19 prevention techniques and vaccine registration. However, the overwhelming influx of news and sociobehavioral narratives, including misinformation/disinformation through social media such as WhatsApp, Facebook, and Twitter, were found to be the primary enablers of vaccine-related infodemics. Electronic media and mHealth were utilized more widely to promote information and communication on the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccination. However, social media and electronic media-driven infodemics were identified as the major factors for misinformation related to COVID-19 and vaccine hesitancy. Further, we found a digital divide between the urban and rural populations, with the use of electronic media in rural settings and social media in urban settings.
CONCLUSIONS: In a resource-constrained setting like Pakistan, the usage of mHealth, social media, and electronic media for information spread (both factual and mis/disinformation) related to COVID-19 and its vaccination had a significant impact on attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination. Based on the qualitative findings, we generated a model of digital communications and information dissemination to increase knowledge about COVID-19 and its prevention measures, including vaccination, which can be replicated in similar settings for other disease burdens and related infodemics. Further, to mitigate the infodemics, both digital and nondigital interventions are needed at a larger scale.

BACKGROUND: New pharmacists, PharmD graduates of 2020 and 2021, faced the unique challenge of entering the workforce during the volatile and divisive COVID-19 pandemic. They had to navigate patient-driven misinformation while adapting to evolving roles, including the distribution and administration of COVID-19 vaccines. Understanding the experiences of new pharmacists during this period is crucial for professional development and patient care.
OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to describe new pharmacists\' experiences of handling COVID-19 vaccine misinformation presented by patients.
METHODS: Semi-structured Zoom interviews were conducted with PharmD 2020 and 2021 graduates recruited from St. John\'s University College of Pharmacy and Health Sciences (SJUCPHS) and the University of Mississippi School of Pharmacy (UMSOP) until saturation was achieved. Interview questions were based on constructs of the HURIER model and WHO algorithm on how to respond to vocal vaccine deniers. Data analysis was performed through deductive thematic content analysis, and findings were reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.
RESULTS: A total of 13 interviews were conducted, with 61.5% of participants from SJU and 38.5% from UM. They worked in various pharmacy settings, including independent (30.8%), chain (23.0%), long-term care (15.4%), and ambulatory care/hospital pharmacies (30.8%). The types of COVID-19 misinformation new pharmacists heard during the pandemic align with the techniques and topics of anti-vaccine arguments outlined by the WHO\'s algorithm. New pharmacists utilized evaluation skills to identify credible sources and information, interpreted patients\' language and sources, and assessed patients\' willingness to be corrected. All new pharmacists responded to misinformation regardless of the technique or topic; however, the mechanism of response may have differed depending on whether a technique or topic was presented.
CONCLUSIONS: This baseline understanding of new pharmacists\' practices in managing health misinformation can inform the development of recommendations for health misinformation management and assist pharmacy schools in identifying areas for further training for student pharmacists.

UNASSIGNED: Medical misinformation, which contributes to vaccine hesitancy, poses challenges to health professionals. Health professions students, while capable of addressing and advocating for vaccination, may lack the confidence to engage with vaccine-hesitant individuals influenced by medical misinformation.
UNASSIGNED: An interprofessional in-person simulation activity (90 minutes) using standardized patients was developed and instituted for students in medicine, nursing, pharmacy, and public health programs. Student volunteers were recruited from classes approximately halfway through their respective degree programs (i.e., second or third year of a 4-year program). Online simulation was used as a method to prepare for in-person simulation. Impact on students was assessed primarily through a postprogram student self-assessment.
UNASSIGNED: A total of 220 students participated in the program; 206 (94%) had paired data available to analyze. Following program participation, self-assessed abilities increased from pre to post, from 2.8 out of 5 (good) to 3.9 out of 5 (very good; p < .001). Ninety-eight percent of students felt that their ability to address medical misinformation was somewhat/much better after the activity, compared to before, and that their ability to address vaccine hesitancy was somewhat/much better. The overall program was rated highly, with mean scores for each program evaluation item >4 out of 5 (very good).
UNASSIGNED: An interprofessional cohort of students demonstrated improvement in self-assessed skills to participate in a conversation with an individual with hesitancy to receive vaccines and/or beliefs informed by misinformation. Students felt that this program was relevant and important to their professional development.

Social media (SoMe) is now a core part of modern-day life with increased use among both patients and urologists. The interplay of SoMe between these two parties is complex. From a patient perspective, SoMe platforms can serve as educational tools as well as communication portals to support networks and patient communities. However, studies report the educational value of content online is often poor and may contain misinformation. For urologists, SoMe can lead to research collaborations, networking and educational content but areas of concern include the potential negative impact SoMe can have on mental health and sharing of patient images without appropriate consent. This review serves to provide an overview of the interaction between SoMe and urology practice and provide practical guidance to navigating it.

UNASSIGNED: The World Health Organization defines \"infodemic\" as the phenomenon of an uncontrolled spread of information in digital and physical environments during a disease outbreak, causing confusion and risk-taking behaviors that can harm health. The aim of this scoping review is to examine international evidence and identify strategies and bottlenecks to tackle health-related fake news.
UNASSIGNED: We performed a scoping review of the literature from 1 January 2018 to 26 January 2023 on PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus electronic databases. We also performed a search of grey literature on institutional websites. The research question has been defined according to the PCC (population, concept, and context) mnemonic for constructing research questions in scoping reviews.
UNASSIGNED: The overall research in the scientific databases yielded a total of 5,516 records. After removing duplicates, and screening the titles, abstracts, and full texts, we included 21 articles from scientific literature. Moreover, 5 documents were retrieved from institutional websites. Based on their content, we decided to group recommendations and bottlenecks into five different and well-defined areas of intervention, which we called strategies: \"foster proper communication through the collaboration between science and social media companies and users,\" \"institutional and regulatory interventions,\" \"check and debunking,\" \"increase health literacy,\" and \"surveillance and monitoring through new digital tools.\"
UNASSIGNED: The multidisciplinary creation of standardized toolkits that collect recommendations from the literature and institutions can provide a valid solution to limit the infodemic, increasing the health education of both citizens and health professionals, providing the knowledge to recognize fake news, as well as supporting the creation and validation of AI tools aimed at prebunking and debunking.

BACKGROUND: During health emergencies, effective infodemic management has become a paramount challenge. A new era marked by a rapidly changing information ecosystem, combined with the widespread dissemination of misinformation and disinformation, has magnified the complexity of the issue. For infodemic management measures to be effective, acceptable, and trustworthy, a robust framework of ethical considerations is needed.
OBJECTIVE: This systematic scoping review aims to identify and analyze ethical considerations and procedural principles relevant to infodemic management, ultimately enhancing the effectiveness of these practices and increasing trust in stakeholders performing infodemic management practices with the goal of safeguarding public health.
METHODS: The review involved a comprehensive examination of the literature related to ethical considerations in infodemic management from 2002 to 2022, drawing from publications in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science. Policy documents and relevant material were included in the search strategy. Papers were screened against inclusion and exclusion criteria, and core thematic areas were systematically identified and categorized following PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We analyzed the literature to identify substantive ethical principles that were crucial for guiding actions in the realms of infodemic management and social listening, as well as related procedural ethical principles. In this review, we consider ethical principles that are extensively deliberated upon in the literature, such as equity, justice, or respect for autonomy. However, we acknowledge the existence and relevance of procedural practices, which we also consider as ethical principles or practices that, when implemented, enhance the efficacy of infodemic management while ensuring the respect of substantive ethical principles.
RESULTS: Drawing from 103 publications, the review yielded several key findings related to ethical principles, approaches, and guidelines for practice in the context of infodemic management. Community engagement, empowerment through education, and inclusivity emerged as procedural principles and practices that enhance the quality and effectiveness of communication and social listening efforts, fostering trust, a key emerging theme and crucial ethical principle. The review also emphasized the significance of transparency, privacy, and cybersecurity in data collection.
CONCLUSIONS: This review underscores the pivotal role of ethics in bolstering the efficacy of infodemic management. From the analyzed body of literature, it becomes evident that ethical considerations serve as essential instruments for cultivating trust and credibility while also facilitating the medium-term and long-term viability of infodemic management approaches.

BACKGROUND: Social media platforms like TikTok are a very popular source of information, especially for skin diseases. Topical steroid withdrawal (TSW) is a condition that is yet to be fully defined and understood. This did not stop the hashtag #topicalsteroidwithdrawal from amassing more than 600 million views on TikTok. It is of utmost importance to assess the quality and content of TikTok videos on TSW to prevent the spread of misinformation.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to assess the quality and content of the top 100 videos dedicated to the topic of TSW on TikTok.
METHODS: This observational study assesses the content and quality of the top 100 videos about TSW on TikTok. A total of 3 independent scoring systems: DISCERN, Journal of the American Medical Association, and Global Quality Scale were used to assess the video quality. The content of the videos was coded by 2 reviewers and analyzed for recurrent themes and topics.
RESULTS: This study found that only 10.0% (n=10) of the videos clearly defined what TSW is. Videos were predominantly posted by White, middle-aged, and female creators. Neither cause nor mechanism of the disease were described in the videos. The symptoms suggested itching, peeling, and dryness which resembled the symptoms of atopic dermatitis. The videos fail to mention important information regarding the use of steroids such as the reason it was initially prescribed, the name of the drug, concentration, mechanism of usage, and method of discontinuation. Management techniques varied from hydration methods approved for treatment of atopic dermatitis to treatment options without scientific evidence. Overall, the videos had immense reach with over 200 million views, 45 million likes, 90,000 comments, and 100,000 shares. Video quality was poor with an average DISCERN score of 1.63 (SD 0.56)/5. Video length, total view count, and views/day were all associated with increased quality, indicating that patients were interacting more with higher quality videos. However, videos were created exclusively by personal accounts, highlighting the absence of dermatologists on the platform to discuss this topic.
CONCLUSIONS: The videos posted on TikTok are of low quality and lack pertinent information. The content is varied and not consistent. Health care professionals, including dermatologists and residents in the field, need to be more active on the topic, to spread proper information and prevent an increase in steroid phobia. Health care professionals are encouraged to ride the wave and produce high-quality videos discussing what is known about TSW to avoid the spread of misinformation.