article · Circulation
Background: Misinformation about cardiovascular health significantly impairs health outcomes. Despite its critical importance, a comprehensive mapping of the existing literature on this issue remains lacking. This scoping review aims to synthesize current evidence on cardiovascular health-related misinformation across diverse populations and settings. Methods: This scoping review was conducted following the Joanna Briggs Institute guideline, and various databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Global Health, CINAHL, Web of Science) and grey literature were searched using the comprehensive search strategies based on the inclusion criteria of the review. Study selection involves (first title and abstract, then full-text review) a dual-reviewer approach using Covidence software, with conflicts resolved through discussion by a third reviewer. Two reviewers performed data extraction, and a narrative synthesis was accompanied by tabulated and graphical presentations of the data. Results: Out of 6,348 screened articles, 22 were included in the study. This review highlights the widespread misinformation in cardiovascular health, covering topics such as smoking, blood pressure, weight control, and alcohol. Misleading claims include the safety of e-cigarettes, the benefits of moderate alcohol intake, and the preference for unproven home remedies over pharmacological treatments. Notably, 28.6% of posts falsely warned against salt reduction, reaching 1.5 million followers, while 36.7% of diet and exercise vlogs on YouTube contained inaccuracies. Additionally, one-third of YouTube videos on acute myocardial infarction featured unreliable information, often from low-quality sources. <span style="box-sizing:border-box; margin:0px; padding:0px"> Conclusion: This review's findings underscore the alarming prevalence of misinformation related to cardiovascular diseases and their detrimental impact, which highlights the need to mitigate their harmful effects.</span>
This page summarises published work. The authoritative version sits with the publisher.
DOI: 10.1161/cir.153.suppl_1.tu251
Is something wrong with this record? Report it or request removal.
Discussion
Have you built on this work, tried to replicate it, or seen it applied in practice? Share what you know. Verified researchers and MARATTO™ domain experts can open a discussion, and any member can reply. Contributions are reviewed before they appear.
No discussion yet. Open the first thread.
New to MARATTO™? Create a free account.