Sources of information on monkeypox virus infection. A systematic review with meta-analysis.

Darwin A Le��n-Figueroa, Joshuan J Barboza, Mario J Valladares-Garrido
Author Information
  1. Darwin A Le��n-Figueroa: Facultad de Medicina Humana, Universidad de San Mart��n de Porres, 15011, Chiclayo, Peru.
  2. Joshuan J Barboza: Unidad de Revisiones Sistem��ticas y Meta-an��lisis, Universidad San Ignacio de Loyola, 15046, Lima, Peru.
  3. Mario J Valladares-Garrido: Universidad Continental, 15046, Lima, Peru. mvalladares@continental.edu.pe.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Monkeypox (Mpox) virus infection is a topic of growing interest today because of its potential public health impact and concern about possible outbreaks. Reliable and up-to-date sources of information that provide accurate data on its transmission, symptoms, prevention, and treatment are essential for understanding and effectively addressing this disease. Therefore, the aim of the present study is to determine the prevalence of sources of information on Mpox virus infection.
METHODS: An exhaustive systematic review and meta-analysis was carried out using the information available in the PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, Embase, and ScienceDirect databases up to August 3, 2023. The data were analyzed using R software version 4.2.3. The quality of the cross-sectional studies that formed part of this review was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Meta-Analysis of Statistics Assessment and Review Instrument (JBI-MAStARI) tool. In addition, a subgroup analysis was performed based on the study populations.
RESULTS: Through electronic searches of five databases, a total of 1833 studies were identified. Twenty-four cross-sectional articles were included, with a total sample of 35,959 participants from 34 countries. The pooled prevalence of each of the included information sources was: social networks reached 59% (95% CI: 50-68%; 29,146 participants; 22 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01); the Internet was 61% (95% CI: 44-77%; 14,002 participants; 5 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01), radio reached 10% (95% CI: 07-13%; 8917 participants; 4 studies; I = 93%; p < 0.01), television accounted for 24% (95% CI: 09-43%; 14,896 participants; 8 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01), and the combination of radio and television accounted for 45% (95% CI: 31-60%; 4207 participants; 7 studies; I = 99%; p < 0.01); for newspapers, it was 15% (95% CI: 05-27%; 2841 participants; 6 studies; I = 99%; p < 0.01), friends and relatives accounted for 19% (95% CI: 12-28%; 28,470 participants; 19 studies; I = 100%; p < 0.01), the World Health Organization (WHO) accounted for 17% (95% CI: 07-29%; 1656 participants; 3 studies; I = 97%; p < 0.01), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) accounted for 10% (95% CI: 03-21%; 2378 participants; 3 studies; I = 98%; p < 0.01), and the combination of WHO and CDC websites accounted for 60% (95% CI: 48-72%; 1828 participants; 4 studies; I = 96%; p < 0.01), and finally, scientific articles and journals accounted for 24% (95% CI: 16-33%; 16,775 participants; 13 studies; I = 99%; p < 0.01).
CONCLUSION: The study suggests that people access a variety of information sources to gain knowledge about Mpox virus infection, with a strong emphasis on online sources such as social networks and the Internet. However, it is important to note that the quality and accuracy of information available from these sources can vary, underscoring the need to promote access to reliable and up-to-date information about this disease to ensure public health.

Keywords

References

  1. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 May 21;11(5): [PMID: 37243112]
  2. Pathog Glob Health. 2020 Mar;114(2):68-75 [PMID: 32202967]
  3. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Jan 22;11(2): [PMID: 36851124]
  4. Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Nov 26;10(12): [PMID: 36560432]
  5. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Mar 08;11(3): [PMID: 36992194]
  6. Diseases. 2023 Jun 02;11(2): [PMID: 37366869]
  7. J Ambient Intell Humaniz Comput. 2023 May 27;:1-13 [PMID: 37360776]
  8. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 19;22(3):e14414 [PMID: 32191208]
  9. Front Public Health. 2023 Jul 26;11:1192542 [PMID: 37575128]
  10. Infez Med. 2022 Sep 1;30(3):372-391 [PMID: 36148174]
  11. Health Res Policy Syst. 2021 Dec 6;19(1):140 [PMID: 34865640]
  12. New Microbes New Infect. 2023 Sep;54:101146 [PMID: 37363720]
  13. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022 Sep 27;7(10): [PMID: 36288008]
  14. Health Res Policy Syst. 2023 Jul 10;21(1):71 [PMID: 37430348]
  15. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2022 Sep-Oct;49:102362 [PMID: 35643256]
  16. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2023 Jan 05;8(1): [PMID: 36668948]
  17. J Prev Med Hyg. 2023 May 16;64(1):E13-E26 [PMID: 37293454]
  18. J Med Internet Res. 2021 Oct 29;23(10):e29155 [PMID: 34714249]
  19. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Feb 23;11(3): [PMID: 36992114]
  20. Pathogens. 2023 Jun 26;12(7): [PMID: 37513719]
  21. Am J Public Health. 2020 Oct;110(S3):S273-S275 [PMID: 33001722]
  22. Nat Commun. 2018 Nov 20;9(1):4787 [PMID: 30459415]
  23. BMC Public Health. 2023 Mar 29;23(1):591 [PMID: 36991417]
  24. Int J Health Policy Manag. 2014 Jul 26;3(2):77-89 [PMID: 25114946]
  25. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2023 Jul 17;9:e46489 [PMID: 37459174]
  26. J Pharm Policy Pract. 2023 Mar 7;16(1):39 [PMID: 36882801]
  27. Pediatrics. 2013 Jun;131 Suppl 4:S224-5 [PMID: 23729765]
  28. Rocz Panstw Zakl Hig. 2022;73(3):365-371 [PMID: 36169392]
  29. J Adv Nurs. 2023 Jul;79(7):2684-2694 [PMID: 36908101]
  30. J Med Internet Res. 2022 Mar 9;24(3):e26515 [PMID: 35262498]
  31. BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 30;13(7):e072326 [PMID: 37518081]
  32. Syst Rev. 2018 May 5;7(1):72 [PMID: 29729669]
  33. Trop Med Infect Dis. 2022 Dec 22;8(1): [PMID: 36668911]
  34. Implement Sci. 2020 Mar 4;15(1):14 [PMID: 32131861]
  35. Healthcare (Basel). 2023 Feb 17;11(4): [PMID: 36833136]
  36. Travel Med Infect Dis. 2023 May-Jun;53:102574 [PMID: 37061148]
  37. Am J Lifestyle Med. 2021 Feb 19;16(5):641-654 [PMID: 36072690]
  38. NAM Perspect. 2021 Jul 16;2021: [PMID: 34611600]
  39. Vaccines (Basel). 2023 Jan 12;11(1): [PMID: 36680012]
  40. Vaccines (Basel). 2022 Dec 21;11(1): [PMID: 36679864]
  41. PLoS One. 2015 Oct 20;10(10):e0140028 [PMID: 26485302]
  42. Pathogens. 2022 Aug 11;11(8): [PMID: 36015025]
  43. Am J Public Health. 2014 Jan;104(1):17-22 [PMID: 24228653]
  44. PLoS One. 2023 Mar 30;18(3):e0283571 [PMID: 36996122]
  45. Cureus. 2022 Aug 16;14(8):e28060 [PMID: 36127980]
  46. Libyan J Med. 2023 Dec;18(1):2222448 [PMID: 37300843]

MeSH Term

United States
Humans
Monkeypox virus
Cross-Sectional Studies
Mpox (monkeypox)
Academies and Institutes
Information Sources

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0studiesparticipants95%CI:=p<001informationsourcesaccountedMpoxvirusinfection3100%studyreviewusing499%Monkeypoxpublichealthup-to-datedatadiseaseprevalencesystematicmeta-analysisavailabledatabasesqualitycross-sectionaltotalarticlesincludedsocialnetworksreachedInternet14radio10%television24%combinationWHOCDCaccessBACKGROUND:topicgrowinginteresttodaypotentialimpactconcernpossibleoutbreaksReliableprovideaccuratetransmissionsymptomspreventiontreatmentessentialunderstandingeffectivelyaddressingThereforeaimpresentdetermineMETHODS:exhaustivecarriedPubMedScopusWebScienceEmbaseScienceDirectAugust2023analyzedRsoftwareversion2formedpartassessedJoannaBriggsInstituteMeta-AnalysisStatisticsAssessmentReviewInstrumentJBI-MAStARItooladditionsubgroupanalysisperformedbasedpopulationsRESULTS:electronicsearchesfive1833identifiedTwenty-foursample3595934countriespooledwas:59%50-68%291462261%44-77%002507-13%891793%09-43%896845%31-60%42077newspapers15%05-27%28416friendsrelatives19%12-28%2847019WorldHealthOrganization17%07-29%165697%CentersDiseaseControlPrevention03-21%237898%websites60%48-72%182896%finallyscientificjournals16-33%1677513CONCLUSION:suggestspeoplevarietygainknowledgestrongemphasisonlineHoweverimportantnoteaccuracycanvaryunderscoringneedpromotereliableensureSourcesmonkeypoxAttitudeInformationKnowledge

Similar Articles

Cited By