ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2025
Bridging the Infodemic Equity Gap: North-South Digital Health Disparities and a Framework for Action.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Unlabelled: Rapidly propagating false and misleading health claims do not strike all societies evenly. Structural digital inequalities, uneven platform governance leverage, gaps in multilingual health literacy, and divergent political information climates have combined to produce what is argued here as an infodemic equity gap: a patterned disparity in exposure to, resilience against, and recoverability from health misinformation between and within countries. This viewpoint advances a pragmatic equity-centered framework that dissects that gap into layered capacities (structural infrastructure, ecosystem governance, sociocultural trust and literacy, and adaptive intervention capability) and shows how their interaction generates differential outcomes. Using a purposive comparative lens across 5 archetypal settings (Finland, Taiwan, the United States, Brazil, and India), it shows distinct causal pathways linking technological architectures, governance choices, and social context to measurable process metrics (detection latency, rumor half-life, and multilingual coverage) and outcome indicators (trust trajectories, vaccination differentials, and equity-sensitive gaps). Rather than revisiting broad definitional terrain already synthesized elsewhere, the focus is on isolating disparities that are specifically actionable through digital health policy, measurement standardization, and investment strategies. A forward agenda is outlined for harmonized indicators, evaluation methods, and ethical safeguards needed to reduce inequities in future health emergency information ecologies. The intended audiences are digital health researchers, platform governance teams, public health decision-makers, and funding bodies shaping cross-border preparedness.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.