Introduction The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has caused significant global mortality and impacted lives around the world. Virus Watch aims to provide evidence on which public health approaches are most likely to be effective in reducing transmission and impact of the virus, and will investigate community incidence, symptom profiles and transmission of COVID-19 in relation to population movement and behaviours. Methods and analysis Virus Watch is a household community cohort study of acute respiratory infections in England and Wales and will run from June 2020 to August 2021. The study aims to recruit 50 000 people, including 12 500 from minority ethnic backgrounds, for an online survey cohort and monthly antibody testing using home fingerprick test kits. Nested within this larger study will be a subcohort of 10 000 individuals, including 3000 people from minority ethnic backgrounds. This cohort of 10 000 people will have full blood serology taken between October 2020 and January 2021 and repeat serology between May 2021 and August 2021. Participants will also post self-administered nasal swabs for PCR assays of SARS-CoV-2 and will follow one of three different PCR testing schedules based on symptoms. Ethics and dissemination This study has been approved by the Hampstead National Health Service (NHS) Health Research Authority Ethics Committee (ethics approval number 20/HRA/2320). We are monitoring participant queries and using these to refine methodology where necessary, and are providing summaries and policy briefings of our preliminary findings to inform public health action by working through our partnerships with our study advisory group, Public Health England, NHS and government scientific advisory panels.
Background: Misinformation in health and health care contexts threatens public health by undermining initiatives, spreading dangerous behaviors, and influencing decision-making. Given its reach on online platforms and social media, there is growing demand for interventions addressing misinformation. Literature highlights the importance of theoretical underpinnings (frameworks and models) to guide the development of educational interventions targeting both the features of misinformation and the human traits that increase susceptibility. Objective: This review examines literature on online interventions targeting health misinformation to mitigate adverse public health impacts. It explores intervention types, population demographics, susceptibility-related human attributes, and misinformation characteristics addressed. It also identifies the theoretical underpinnings used and gaps in the literature. Methods: The review followed a methodological framework and adhered to PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) guidelines. A search strategy combining Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) and keywords was used to search five databases for studies published between 2018 and 2024. Identified studies underwent deduplication, title and abstract screening using predefined eligibility criteria, full-text screening, and data extraction. Results: The initial search yielded 513 citations; 30 (5.8%) studies were included after screening. Of these, 19 (63%) focused on COVID-19 misinformation, 11 (37%) on other health contexts, and 1 (3%) addressed misinformation conceptually. Regarding intervention type, 22 (73%) used educational courses, 7 (23%) employed counter speech, and 1 (3%) used inoculation games, with some overlap. Sixteen (53%) interventions targeted characteristics of misinformation, categorized as content and presentation tactics, cognitive and psychological biases, social and cultural influences, and dissemination strategies. Seven (23%) interventions focused on specific demographics, while 14 (47%) addressed human attributes that heighten susceptibility. These attributes were grouped into knowledge and processing, emotional and psychological factors, and trust and social dynamics. Theoretical underpinnings guided intervention development in 23 (77%) studies, often overlapping in categories including inoculation and correction, education and cognition, motivation and emotion, behavior and persuasion, trust and belief, and learning design. Conclusions: Online interventions targeting health misinformation often share outcome goals and use overlapping strategies such as educational courses, counter speech, and inoculation games. Many adopt multifaceted approaches to address misinformation’s complexity. However, gaps remain in tailoring interventions to misinformation characteristics that could improve specificity and impact. Few studies focus on human attributes contributing to belief in and spread of misinformation, particularly among vulnerable groups. While theoretical models are commonly cited, clearer reporting and stronger connections to intervention design are needed. Collaboration among intervention developers, theorists, and psychologists is recommended to enhance future interventions.