Misinformation about COVID-19 among middle-aged and older migrants residing in Brazil and Portugal

Oliveira, Rodrigo Mota de; Sousa, Álvaro Francisco Lopes de; Sousa, Anderson Reis de; Araújo, Agostinho Antônio Cruz; Muniz, Vinícius de Oliveira; Fronteira, Inês; Mendes, Isabel Amélia Costa

doi:10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2022-0401en

Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Brasil

Revista da Escola de Enfermagem da USP

Español English

Brasil

Español English

sumário « anterior atual seguinte »

Sumário

Original Article • Rev. esc. enferm. USP 57 (spe) • 2023 • https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2022-0401en copy

Misinformation about COVID-19 among middle-aged and older migrants residing in Brazil and Portugal

Desinformación sobre COVID-19 entre migrantes de mediana edad y mayores residentes en Brasil y Portugal

Authorship SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

ABSTRACT

Objective:

The aim of this study was to assess the prevalence of COVID-19 misinformation among migrants aged 50 or older residing in Brazil and Portugal.

Method:

This was a cross-sectional analytical study conducted among migrants from Portuguese-speaking countries living in Brazil and Portugal, who were 50 years of age or older. The prevalence ratios (PR) were estimated using the Poisson regression model.

Results:

Out of the 304 participants included in the study, 188 (61.8%) agreed with at least one piece of misinformation. Factors such as having a religious affiliation (aPR: 1.24), higher educational attainment (aPR: 1.17), knowing someone who died from COVID-19 (aPR: 1.78), and having no intention to get vaccinated (aPR: 1.36) were associated with a higher likelihood of agreeing with COVID-19 misinformation.

Conclusion:

The findings suggest that access to misinformation was influenced by social, economic, and religious factors among elderly migrants with low digital literacy, thus contributing to the dissemination of false content within this population.

DESCRIPTORS
Communication; COVID-19; Aged; Transients and Migrants; Public Health

	Brazil		Portugal		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%
Category 1 – Conspiracy Theories about the Origin, Prevention, Treatment, and Cure of COVID-19/SARS-CoV-2
1. The use of infrared light from a digital thermometer on the forehead region should be avoided as it may lead to brain damage, hormonal problems, and insomnia.	36	27.1	45	26.3	81	26.7
2. Asymptomatic individuals diagnosed with SARS-CoV-2 are not capable of transmitting the virus to others.	15	11.3	23	32.5	38	12.5
3. SARS-CoV-2 was developed in a laboratory by Chinese scientists with the intention of using it as a biological weapon.	29	21.8	15	8.8	44	14.2
4. The pharmaceutical industry intentionally propagated the spread of SARS-CoV-2 for the purpose of population control.	5	3.8	10	5.8	15	4.9
5. SARS-CoV-2 has undergone genetic manipulation and exhibits a structure similar to that of the HIV virus.	18	13.5	6	3.5	24	7.9
6. SARS-CoV-2 cannot survive at temperatures higher than 26 degrees Celsius.	9	6.8	17	9.9	26	8.6
7. Social isolation may weaken the immune system and facilitate SARS-CoV-2 infection.	16	12	28	16.4	44	14.5
8. Wearing a facial protective mask for SARS-CoV-2 prevention can increase the concentration of the virus in the blood, making it denser and rendering the person more susceptible to thrombosis.	1	0.8	3	1.8	4	1.3
9. Excessive and regular use of facial protective masks for SARS-CoV-2 prevention can cause suffocation and should therefore be avoided.	2	1.5	13	7.6	15	4.9
10. Holding one’s breath for 10 seconds is not an accurate indicator of whether a person has COVID-19.	1	0.8	9	5.3	10	3.3
11. Daily use of hand sanitizer with alcohol can be toxic and extremely detrimental to health.	9	6.8	17	9.9	26	8.6
Category 2 – Home Remedies and Non-pharmacological Methods for COVID-19 Contagion Prevention and Treatment
12. Fennel tea, warm water, or whiskey are purported to have an effect in combating or protecting individuals against the novel Coronavirus.	2	1.5	–	–	2	0.7
13. Avocado tea, hibiscus tea, perfume spray, and whiskey are substances that some believe can prevent infection.	2	1.5	–	–	2	0.7
14. A concoction of garlic with boiled water is claimed to kill the virus.	–	–	2	1.5	2	0.7
15. Vinegar is suggested to be more effective than alcohol in preventing contamination.	–	–	2	1.5	2	0.7
16. Autohemotherapy (injecting one’s own blood infected with SARS-CoV-2 to stimulate the immune system for protection) is claimed to be highly effective.	–	–	9	5.3	9	3.0
17. Consuming potable water every 15 minutes is believed to expel the novel Coronavirus, preventing its migration to the lungs.	4	3	16	4.7	20	6.6
18. Gargling with warm water, salt, and vinegar is proposed as a potential cure for the virus, as it supposedly remains in the throat for only 4 days.	–	–	7	4.1	7	2.3
19. The novel Coronavirus is purportedly eliminable from the body through water ingestion and gargling with warm water, saline, or acidic solutions, thereby impeding the progression of the infection.	1	0.8	7	4.1	8	2.6
20. Combining hand sanitizer with hair gel is suggested to slow down or eliminate the virus.	2	1.5	1	0.6	3	1.0
21. Using hand sanitizer is claimed to be more efficient than washing hands with water and soap.	3	2.3	9	5.3	12	3.9

	Agreement with misinformation content
	Yes		No		Total
	n	%	n	%	n	%	p-value*
Country of residence							0,86
Brazil	76	40,4	57	49,1	133	43,8
Portugal	112	59,6	59	50,9	171	56,2
Age range							0,97
50–59	130	69,1	80	69,0	210	69,1
60 and above	58	30,9	36	31,0	94	30,9
Number of rooms in the house							<0,001
1–3	34	18,1	45	38,8	79	26
4–7	137	72,9	58	50	195	64,1
8 or more	17	9,0	13	11,2	30	9,9
Number of household members							0,149
1–3	144	76,6	98	84,5	242	79,6
4–5	39	20,7	14	12,1	53	17,4
6–8	5	2,7	4	3,4	9	3,0
Educational level							0,199
Less than 9 years	33	17,6	14	12,1	47	15,5
More than 9 years	155	82,4	102	87,9	257	84,5
Do you have a religion?							0,001
Yes	97	51,6	38	32,8	135	44,4
No	91	48,4	78	67,2	169	55,6
Have you been tested for COVID-19?							0,065
Yes	66	35,1	29	25,0	95	31,3
No	122	64,9	87	75,0	209	68,8
Do you know someone who has had COVID-19?							0,012
Yes	104	55,3	47	40,5	151	49,7
No	84	44,7	69	59,5	153	50,3
Do you know someone who has died from COVID-19?							0,491
Yes	18	9,6	14	12,1	32	10,5
No	170	90,4	102	87,9	272	89,5
Have you been hospitalized due to COVID-19?							0,114
Yes	4	2,1	0	0,0	4	1,3
No	184	97,9	116	100	300	98,7
During the COVID-19 pandemic, have you made any decisions based on non-scientific sources of information?							0,017
No	144	76,6	104	89,7	248	81,6
Yes, at least once	39	20,7	11	9,5	50	16,4
Do you intend to get vaccinated for COVID-19?							0,21
Yes	143	76,1	100	86,2	243	79,9
No	45	23,9	16	13,8	61	20,1

Variable		aPR^‡	95% CI^§	p-value*
Religious affiliation				0,02
No	1	1
Yes	1.22	1.24	1.13–1.54
Education level				0,04
Less than 9 years of education	1	1
More than 9 years of education	1.52	1.17	1.12–1.90
Knowing someone who has died from COVID-19				0,02
No	1	1
Yes	1.26	1.78	1.20–2.13
Willingness to get vaccinated against COVID-19				0,01
Intends to get vaccinated	1	1
Does not intend to get vaccinated	1.29	1.36	1.14–1.75

Universidade de São Paulo, Escola de Enfermagem Av. Dr. Enéas de Carvalho Aguiar, 419 , 05403-000 São Paulo - SP/ Brasil, Tel./Fax: (55 11) 3061-7553, - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: reeusp@usp.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

[1] Corresponding author: Isabel Amélia Costa Mendes Avenida dos Bandeirantes, 3900, Monte Alegre 14040-902 – Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil iamendes@usp.br