Assessment of COVID-19 Information Overload Among the General Public

(1) Psychology must play an important role in the prevention and management of the COVID-19 pandemic. The aim of the present study was to examine associations between the perceptions of information overload and wellbeing in China during the initial phase of COVID-19. (2) Methods: The present research involved a cross-sectional online survey, which controlled for established predictors of wellbeing and the perception of general (not COVID-19-specific) information overload. The setting of the research was China, February 2020. A total of 1349 participants completed an online survey, and the results from 1240 members of the general public who stated that they were uninfected are reported here (55.6% female; 49.4% single; age distribution: 17–25 years: 26%; 26–30 years: 24.3%; 31–40 years: 23.9%; 41–50 years: 16.2%; 51 years+: 9.6%; the most frequent occupations were: 21.5% students; 19.5% teachers; 25.9% office workers; 10.8% managers, plus a few in a wide range of jobs). The outcomes were positive wellbeing (positive affect and life satisfaction) and negative wellbeing (stress, negative affect, anxiety and depression). (3) Results: Regressions were carried out, controlling for established predictors of wellbeing (psychological capital, general information overload, positive and negative coping). Spending time getting information about COVID-19 was associated with more positive wellbeing. In contrast, perceptions of COVID-19 information overload and feeling panic due to COVID-19 were associated with more negative wellbeing. (4) Conclusions: These results have implications for the communication of information about COVID-19 to the general public and form the basis for further research on the topic.

Download Full-text

Information Overload and Underload

Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings ◽

10.13021/g8rk56 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 1 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Bryan Alexander ◽

Kim Barrett ◽

Sioux Cumming ◽

Patrick Herron ◽

Claudia Holland ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Medical Research ◽

General Public ◽

Information Overload ◽

Two Sides

Information underload occurs when we don’t have access to the information we need (for a variety of reasons, including cost) —researchers based at smaller institutions and in the global periphery, policymakers, and the general public, particularly with regard to medical research. Overload occurs when we can access everything but are simply overwhelmed by the torrent of information available (not all of which is equally valuable). Are these issues two sides of the same coin? In both cases, how can we work together to figure out how to get people the information they need? Can we? How widespread are these issues? What are the economic and research consequences of information underload and overload?

Download Full-text

Report from the Information Overload and Underload Workgroup

Open Scholarship Initiative Proceedings ◽

10.13021/g8tg7j ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 1 ◽

Author(s):

Bryan Alexander ◽

Kim Barrett ◽

Sioux Cumming ◽

Patrick Herron ◽

Claudia Holland ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Medical Research ◽

General Public ◽

Information Overload ◽

Dual Nature ◽

The Many ◽

Two Sides

The duality of information overload and underload is a defining issue of our age. Scholarly information is abundant but not universally accessible to all scholars and learners, thereby hindering or prohibiting equitable engagement in ongoing scholarly conversations. Access is a core aspect of the issue of overload and underload—both access to research materials and access to venues where one can contribute to the scholarly corpus—but it is not the only aspect. Our group agreed that the problem of overload is preferable to that of underload; however, the dual nature of the issue makes that conclusion more nuanced, dynamic, and situational. In this report we explore the many factors and causes of information overload and underload and also develop ideas for solutions. A summary of the issues is provided.OSI2016 Workgroup QuestionInformation underload occurs when we don’t have access to the information we need (for a variety of reasons, including cost)—researchers based at smaller institutions and in the global periphery, policymakers, and the general public, particularly with regard to medical research. Overload occurs when we can access everything but are simply overwhelmed by the torrent of information available (not all of which is equally valuable). Are these issues two sides of the same coin? In both cases, how can we work together to figure out how to get people the information they need? Can we? How widespread are these issues? What are the economic and research consequences of information underload and overload?

Download Full-text

Rapid Evidence Reviews for the Philippine COVID-19 Crisis

Acta Medica Philippina ◽

10.47895/amp.v54i0.1549 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 54 ◽

Author(s):

Leonila F. Dans ◽

Ian Theodore G. Cabaluna ◽

Howell Henrian G. Bayona ◽

Antonio L. Dans

Keyword(s):

General Public ◽

Healthcare Workers ◽

Information Overload ◽

Clinical Epidemiology ◽

Healthcare Providers ◽

National Institutes Of Health ◽

Asia Pacific ◽

Policy Makers ◽

New Information ◽

Evidence Based Healthcare

One of the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic is an avalanche of information that is unprecedented in magnitude. In the past 2 months, healthcare providers, policy-makers and the general public have been overwhelmed by this phenomenon. Aside from usual news from TV, radio, newspapers and medical journals, people from all walks of life have had to process kilometric threads on viber, facebook and twitter, as well as hundreds of issuances from all government agencies - from the Office of the President down to the barangays. The information from these various sources are often inconsistent or conflicting, and are always rapidly evolving. New information emerges as outdated information is just beginning to circulate. To aggravate the situation, the chaos is taken advantage of by perpetrators of false information. Clearly, this “informageddon” has led to “information overload” – the inability to process facts because of volume or pace. The manifestation is the widespread panic we are witnessing from all sectors of society. The consequence is impaired decision making – by individuals, families, communities and policy makers. Ultimately, this may lead to a prolonged, uncontrolled pandemic characterized by avoidable deaths, disability, and huge social and economic costs. Even healthcare providers are affected. Because of fear, many feel pressured to do tests and give treatments for COVID-19, that are poorly tested for effectiveness and safety. To help manage the information for policy-makers, healthcare workers and the general public, a group of 70 clinical epidemiologists and health professionals gathered together from the Institute of Clinical Epidemiology, National Institutes of Health-UP Manila and the Asia-Pacific Center for Evidence Based Healthcare Inc. The group conducted voluntary rapid evidence reviews and referred to themselves as “The Rappers”. The reviews were graciously shared by Philippine Society of Microbiology and Infectious Diseases through their website (PSMID.org). The online version allowed regular and rapid updates as evidence accrued.

Download Full-text

Trust in Management Information Systems (MIS)

Zeitschrift für Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie A&O ◽

10.1026/0932-4089/a000306 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 64 (1) ◽

pp. 6-16 ◽

Cited By ~ 5

Author(s):

Sarah M. Meeßen ◽

Meinald T. Thielsch ◽

Guido Hertel

Keyword(s):

Information Systems ◽

Information Overload ◽

Management Information Systems ◽

Empirical Work ◽

Future Research ◽

Management Information ◽

Trust In Management ◽

Actual Use ◽

Trust In Technology ◽

The Internet Of Things

Abstract. Digitalization, enhanced storage capacities, and the Internet of Things increase the volume of data in modern organizations. To process and make use of these data and to avoid information overload, management information systems (MIS) are introduced that collect, process, and analyze relevant data. However, a precondition for the application of MIS is that users trust them. Extending accounts of trust in automation and trust in technology, we introduce a new model of trust in MIS that addresses the conceptual ambiguities of existing conceptualizations of trust and integrates initial empirical work in this field. In doing so, we differentiate between perceived trustworthiness of an MIS, experienced trust in an MIS, intentions to use an MIS, and actual use of an MIS. Moreover, we consider users’ perceived risks and contextual factors (e. g., autonomy at work) as moderators. The introduced model offers guidelines for future research and initial suggestions to foster trust-based MIS use.

Download Full-text