Layperson and Healthcare Professional Experiences of Medical Misinformation About Masks on Social Media During the Covid-19 Pandemic: A Thematic Framework Analysis

This study aimed to compare how healthcare professionals and laypeople from the UK engaged with and confronted misinformation about masks on social media and some of the barriers encountered, applying connectivism as a theoretical lens to interpret findings. Using thematic framework analysis, 12 in-depth interviews were conducted with participants consisting of seven healthcare professionals and five laypeople who actively use the social media website Twitter (now known as X). Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed iteratively using constant comparison and line-by-line coding. After coding of the first few interviews a working analytical framework was developed by comparing codes and grouping them together into categories. This was later applied to the subsequent interview transcripts. Analysis revealed six key categories: social capital (e.g., celebrity status), emotion (e.g., fear, anger, and burnout), culture (e.g., politics and toxic social media culture), social media dynamics (e.g., information overload), communication (e.g., managing cognitive load), and belief (e.g., beliefs being fixed and difficult to change). Our study suggests that healthcare professionals must actively engage with the public on social media by providing clear, evidence-based information, correcting false claims, and fostering trust through transparent communication. Interpreting our findings through a connectivist perspective highlights how digital networks shape trust and learning in online health discourse. Wider society, including tech companies and policymakers, should implement stronger fact-checking mechanisms, promote digital literacy, and support regulations that curb the spread of harmful health misinformation.