Digital health misinformation in Southeast Asia: a systematic review of susceptibility, public health consequences, and intervention evidence
Abstract
BackgroundDigital health misinformation forms part of the information environment in which people assess health risks and act on health advice. We systematically reviewed participant-level studies from Southeast Asia addressing susceptibility, public-health consequences, and intervention evidence.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Europe PMC, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus, supplemented by known reports from the original manuscript and publication-version checks. Prespecified eligibility criteria required primary empirical research involving Southeast Asian populations, an explicit health-misinformation focus, a documented digital connection, and participant-level outcomes. The search and selection process was reported according to PRISMA 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT 2018). Heterogeneity in study designs, measures, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis; findings were synthesized narratively.ResultsThe searches identified 2,210 database records; 1,142 remained after deduplication. Including supplementary identification, 282 reports were sought, 147 were assessed in full text, and 77 reports were included, representing 74 conservatively grouped study populations. Country-attributable evidence came from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Lao PDR; two further reports provided regional findings. Fifty-four reports concerned COVID-19. Appraisal and belief were associated with cognition, literacy, trust, identity, emotion, and social context, although measures and sampling differed considerably. Findings linked misinformation-related constructs with sharing, vaccine attitudes, preventive behavior, distress, and accounts of delayed care. Correction, inoculation, digital education, chatbots, and community responses produced heterogeneous findings; most interventions did not isolate a misinformation-specific behavioral effect.DiscussionInterpretation is limited by 135 unretrieved reports, a single assessment workflow without independent duplicate human screening, and predominantly observational evidence. The regional literature supports context-sensitive interpretation of exposure, appraisal, belief, and action; it does not establish a uniform causal pathway or a preferred intervention transferable across all settings.
Related
- Co-production using Theory of Change in the development of the SUCCEED Africa community-based rehabilitation intervention for people living with psychosis in West and Southeast Africa
- Pooled prevalence of third-generation cephalosporin resistance among Escherichia coli bloodstream isolates in Southeast Asia: protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
- Consequences of opioid exposure in disease-free cancer survivors: A systematic literature review
- The Association Between CD40 rs1883832 Polymorphism and Cancer Susceptibility: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
- Moral Injury and Mental Health Consequences in Active-duty Soldiers: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Cross-sectional Surveys.
BibTeX
@article{zhang2026digital,
title = {{Digital health misinformation in Southeast Asia: a systematic review of susceptibility, public health consequences, and intervention evidence}},
author = {Liaoniao Zhang and Weixin Zhu and Huan Ding and Lan Liu},
journal = {Frontiers in Public Health},
year = {2026},
month = nov,
doi = {10.3389/fpubh.2026.1979322},
url = {https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1979322},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Digital health misinformation in Southeast Asia: a systematic review of susceptibility, public health consequences, and intervention evidence
AU - Liaoniao Zhang
AU - Weixin Zhu
AU - Huan Ding
AU - Lan Liu
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/11/02
JO - Frontiers in Public Health
DO - 10.3389/fpubh.2026.1979322
UR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpubh.2026.1979322
AB - BackgroundDigital health misinformation forms part of the information environment in which people assess health risks and act on health advice. We systematically reviewed participant-level studies from Southeast Asia addressing susceptibility, public-health consequences, and intervention evidence.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Europe PMC, Web of Science Core Collection, and Scopus, supplemented by known reports from the original manuscript and publication-version checks. Prespecified eligibility criteria required primary empirical research involving Southeast Asian populations, an explicit health-misinformation focus, a documented digital connection, and participant-level outcomes. The search and selection process was reported according to PRISMA 2020. Methodological quality was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool (MMAT 2018). Heterogeneity in study designs, measures, and outcomes precluded meta-analysis; findings were synthesized narratively.ResultsThe searches identified 2,210 database records; 1,142 remained after deduplication. Including supplementary identification, 282 reports were sought, 147 were assessed in full text, and 77 reports were included, representing 74 conservatively grouped study populations. Country-attributable evidence came from Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, and Lao PDR; two further reports provided regional findings. Fifty-four reports concerned COVID-19. Appraisal and belief were associated with cognition, literacy, trust, identity, emotion, and social context, although measures and sampling differed considerably. Findings linked misinformation-related constructs with sharing, vaccine attitudes, preventive behavior, distress, and accounts of delayed care. Correction, inoculation, digital education, chatbots, and community responses produced heterogeneous findings; most interventions did not isolate a misinformation-specific behavioral effect.DiscussionInterpretation is limited by 135 unretrieved reports, a single assessment workflow without independent duplicate human screening, and predominantly observational evidence. The regional literature supports context-sensitive interpretation of exposure, appraisal, belief, and action; it does not establish a uniform causal pathway or a preferred intervention transferable across all settings.
SN - 2296-2565
ER -