Health and science-related disinformation on COVID-19: A content analysis of hoaxes identified by fact-checkers in Spain [open access article]

Click to access


A massive “infodemic” developed in parallel with the global COVID-19 pandemic and contributed to public misinformation at a time when access to quality information was crucial. This research aimed to analyze the science and health-related hoaxes that were spread during the pandemic with the objectives of (1) identifying the characteristics of the form and content of such false information, and the platforms used to spread them, and (2) formulating a typology that can be used to classify the different types of hoaxes according to their connection with scientific information. The study was conducted by analyzing the content of hoaxes which were debunked by the three main fact-checking organizations in Spain in the three months following WHO’s announcement of the pandemic (N = 533). The results indicated that science and health content played a prominent role in shaping the spread of these hoaxes during the pandemic. The most common hoaxes on science and health involved information on scientific research or health management, used text, were based on deception, used real sources, were international in scope, and were spread through social networks. Based on the analysis, we proposed a system for classifying science and health-related hoaxes, and identified four types according to their connection to scientific knowledge: “hasty” science, decontextualized science, badly interpreted science, and falsehood without a scientific basis. The rampant propagation and widespread availability of disinformation point to the need to foster media and scientific caution and literacy among the public and increase awareness of the importance of timing and substantiation of scientific research. The results can be useful in improving media literacy to face disinformation, and the typology we formulate can help develop future systems for automated detection of health and science-related hoaxes.


A great amount of misinformation and hoaxes on matters related to the pandemic emerged in parallel with the COVID-19 pandemic, and spread primarily through social networks. This phenomenon reached such levels that the World Health Organization (WHO) described it as a “massive infodemic,” and warned the world of its dangers as it prevents the public from accessing the much-needed reliable information about the disease [1]. It is well known that many of the hoaxes were focused on scientific and health-related topics [2,3]. However, the relationship between scientific information and the characteristics of these hoaxes has not been elucidated.

For the first time in contemporary history, a pandemic of this magnitude was experienced, and all media outlets across the globe disseminated a huge amount of “express science” that gave rise to a problematic relationship between science and society. A lot of information was based on preprints of scientific publications that had not yet undergone a peer-review process, and this contributed to public misinformation.

Spain was hit hard by the pandemic and suffered a high percentage of infections and deaths [4]. On March 14, 2020, the government announced a state of alarm, which involved a nation-wide lockdown that lasted until June 21. Spain was restrained by a national lockdown, which created a crisis, and citizens were eager to understand the pandemic better and turned to social media to receive immediate information. Spain was thus a perfect case for our study.

The phenomenon of information disorder

History is littered with examples of fabrication and dissemination of falsehoods by people, organizations, and governments [5,6]. Recently, public dissemination of falsehoods has reached unprecedented proportions. Digital networks have transformed traditional public communication processes, and one of their consequences is that incorrect information can now be spread worldwide quickly, and on a massive scale.

Disinformation refers to deliberate deception, whereas misinformation refers to the unintended proliferation of falsehoods. These two categories effectively differentiate between acts of malice (voluntary) and mistakes (involuntary). These two broad categories include multiple modalities and specific terms. Research has explored certain modalities such as conspiracy theories [7], rumors [8], and hoaxes [9].

In journalism, “fake” [10,11] or “false” [12] news phenomenon has been widely investigated. Interest in disinformation within the media has intensified over the last decade, especially since 2016, as a result of the US presidential election [13] and the Brexit referendum [14]. The incidence of false information during these events helped popularize the controversial and ambiguous concept of “fake news” [11,15]. According to Tandoc Jr. et al. [16], “fake news” is a multiform reality that encompasses diverse expressions, such as news satire, news parody, fabrication, manipulation, advertising, and propaganda.

Among the different forms and modes of disinformation, hoaxes play a prominent role. These have been defined as “all intentionally false content that appears to be true, conceived with the purpose of deceiving the public and publicly spread via any social platform or social network” [2]. In our study, we opted to use the hoax concept because the falsehoods investigated not only correspond to content disseminated in news media, but according to the extant literature, it is a concept that designates deliberate falsehoods and targets the general public through any communication channel.

Source: referred article. Click to access

Identified as key challenges of our time [17], misinformation and disinformation have been the subject of many research articles with a wide range of approaches and methodologies [18]. The deliberately misleading nature of false information makes it difficult to study and analyze, and most studies conducted thus far have focused on three aspects: (1) identification of the forms of false content, (2) the dynamics of dissemination, especially on social networks, and (3) the impact on public opinion.


Useful links


León B, Martínez-Costa MP, Salaverría R, López-Goñi I (2022) Health and science-related disinformation on COVID-19: A content analysis of hoaxes identified by fact-checkers in Spain. PLOS ONE 17(4): e0265995.

Cited references

  1. World Health Organization [Internet]. Geneva. Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Situation Report 13. 2020 Feb 2 [Cited 2020 June 20]. Available from:
  2. Salaverría R, Buslón N, López-Pan F, León B, López-Goñi I, Erviti MC. Desinformación en tiempos de pandemia: Tipología de los bulos sobre la Covid-19 [Disinformation in times of pandemic: typology of hoaxes on Covid-19]. EPI. expanded programme on immunisation. 2020;29(3):e290315.
  3. Al-Zaman MS. COVID-19-related social media fake news in India. Journalism Media. 2021;2(1):100–114.
  4. European Center for Disease Prevention and Control [Internet]. Stockholm. COVID-19 situation update for the EU/EEA and the UK. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  5. Denery DG. The devil wins: A history of lying from the Garden of Eden to the Enlightenment. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press; 2016.
  6. Cortada JW, Aspray W. Fake news nation. The long history of lies and misinterpretations in America. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group; 2019.
  7. Craft S, Ashley S, Maksl A. News media literacy and conspiracy theory endorsement. Commun Public. 2017;2(4):388–401.
  8. Alkhodair SA, Ding SHH, Fung BCM, Liu J. Detecting breaking news rumors of emerging topics in social media. Inf Process Manag. 2020;57(2):1–13.
  9. Braun JA, Eklund JL. Fake news, real money: Ad tech platforms, profit-driven hoaxes, and the business of journalism. Digit Journalism. 2019;7(1):1–21.
  10. Tandoc EC Jr, Thomas RJ, Bishop L. What is (fake) news? Analyzing news values (and more) in fake stories. Media Commun. 2021;9(1):110–119.
  11. Quandt T, Frischlich L, Boberg S, Schatto‐Eckrodt T. Fake news. The International Encyclopedia of journalism Studies. 2019 April 29:1–6.
  12. Andı S, Akesson J. Nudging away false news: Evidence from a social norms experiment. Digit Journalism, 2020;9(1):106–125.
  13. Allcott H, Gentzkow M. Social media and fake news in the 2016 election. J Econ Perspect. 2017;31(2):211–236.
  14. Bastos MT, Mercea D. The Brexit botnet and user-generated hyperpartisan news. Soc Sci Comput Rev. 2019;37(1):38–54.
  15. Wardle C. First Draft’s essential guide to understanding information disorder. First Draft [Internet]. 2019 Oct. [Cited 2020 Oct 10] Available from:
  16. Tandoc EC Jr, Lim ZW, Ling R. Defining ‘fake news’. Digit Journalism. 2018;6(2):137–153.
  17. Lazer DMJ, Baum MA, Benkler Y, Berinsky AJ, Greenhill KM, Menczer F, et al. The science of fake news. Science. 2018 Mar 9;359(6380):1094–1096. pmid:29590025.
  18. Jankowski NW. Researching fake news: A selective examination of empirical studies. Javnost Public. 2018;25(1–2):248–255.
  19. Waszak PM, Kasprzycka-Waszak W, Kubanek A. The spread of medical fake news in social media–the pilot quantitative study. Health Policy Technol. 2018;7(2):115–118. PMID: 16909505021.
  20. Sommariva S, Vamos C, Mantzarlis A, Đào LUL, Martinez Tyson D. Spreading the (fake) news: Exploring health messages on social media and the implications for health professionals using a case study. Am J Health Educ. 2018;49(4):246–255.
  21. Chou WS, Oh A, Klein WMP. Addressing health-related misinformation on social nedia. JAMA. 2018;320(23):2417–2418. pmid:30428002.
  22. Moreno A, Fuentes-Lara C, Navarro C. Covid-19 communication management in Spain: Exploring the effect of information-seeking behavior and message reception in public’s evaluation. Prof Inf. 2020;29(4):e290402.
  23. Masip P, Aran-Ramspott S, Ruiz-Caballero C, Suau J, Almenar E, Puertas-Graell D. Consumo informativo y cobertura mediática durante el confinamiento por el Covid-19: Sobreinformación, sesgo ideológico y sensacionalismo [Spanish]. EPI. expanded programme on immunisation. 2020;29(3):e290312.
  24. Tai Z, Sun T. Media dependencies in a changing media environment: The case of the 2003 SARS epidemic in China. New Media Soc. 2007;9(6):987–1009.
  25. PubMed [Internet]. Nightingale S, Faddoul M, Farid H. Examining the global spread of COVID-19 misinformation [Preprint]. 2021 Jan 27[Cited 2020 June 12]. Available from: arXiv:2006.08830v2.
  26. Nielsen RK, Fletcher R, Newman N, Brennen JS, Howard P. Navigating the ‘Infodemic’: How people in six countries access and rate news and information about coronavirus. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford Internet Institute and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. 2020 Apr 15. [Cited 2020 June 5]. Available from:
  27. Nsoesie EO, Cesare N, Müller M, Ozonoff A. COVID-19 misinformation spread in eight countries: Exponential growth modeling study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e24425. pmid:33264102, PMCID: 7744144.
  28. Roozenbeek J, Schneider CR, Dryhurst S, Kerr J, Freeman ALJ, Recchia G, et al. Susceptibility to misinformation about COVID-19 around the world. R Soc Open Sci. 2020;7:201199. pmid:33204475
  29. Kim HK, Ahn J, Atkinson L, Kahlor LA. Effects of COVID-19 misinformation on information seeking, avoidance, and processing: A multicountry comparative study. Sci Commun. 2020;42(5):586–615.
  30. Akbar SZ, Panda A, Kukreti D, Meena A, Pal J. Misinformation as a window into prejudice: COVID-19 and the Information environment in India. Proc ACM Hum Comput Interact. 2021;4: (1–28).
  31. Mejova Y, Kourtellis N. YouTubing at home: Media sharing behavior change as proxy for mobility around COVID-19 lockdowns. Preprint. 2021 Mar 26 [cited 2021May15. Available from: arXiv:2103.14601.
  32. Cinelli M, Quattrociocchi W, Galeazzi A, Valensise CM, Brugnoli E, Schmidt AL, et al. The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 16598. pmid:33024152
  33. Kouzy R, Abi Jaoude J, Kraitem A, El Alam MB, Karam B, Adib E, et al. Coronavirus goes viral: Quantifying the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic on Twitter. Cureus. 2020 Mar 13;12(3):e7255. pmid:32292669, PMCID: PMC7152572.
  34. Scott Brennen J, Simon F, Howard P, Nielsen R. Types, sources and claims of Covid-19 misinformation. Oxford, UK: Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, Oxford Internet Institute and Oxford Martin School, University of Oxford. 2020 Apr 7. [Cited 2020 June 5]. Available from:
  35. Montesi M. Understanding fake news during the Covid-19 health crisis from the perspective of information behaviour: The case of Spain. J Librarianship Inf Sci. 2020 Oct 6:1–12.
  36. Yang KC, Pierri F, Hui PM, Axelrod D, Torres-Lugo C, Bryden J, et al. The COVID-19 Infodemic: Twitter versus Facebook. Big Data Soc. 2021;8(1):20539517211013861.
  37. Broniatowski DA, Kerchner D, Farooq F, Huang X, Jamison AM, Dredze M, et al. The COVID-19 social media Infodemic reflects uncertainty and state-sponsored propaganda [Preprint]. 2020 Mar 26 [Cited 2021 May 5]. Available from: arXiv:2007.09682v3.
  38. Bastani P, Bahrami MA. COVID-19 related misinformation on social media: A qualitative study from Iran [Preprint]. J Med Internet Res. 2020 Mar 27;1–5. pmid:32250961.
  39. Grimes DR. Medical disinformation and the unviable nature of COVID-19 conspiracy theories. PLOS ONE. 2021;16(3):e0245900. pmid:33711025
  40. Hsieh H-F, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research. 2005; 15(9): 1277–1288. pmid:16204405
  41. Krippendorff K. Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage; 2009.
  42. Poynter Institute [Internet]. The International Fact-Checking Network. St. Petersburg, FL: The Poynter Institute. [Cited 2021 May 3]. Available from:
  43. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  44. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  45. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  46. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  47. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  48. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 Oct 7]. Available from:
  49. Verifica [Internet]. Madrid: Agencia EFE. c2020 [Cited 2020 July 2]. Available from:
  50. [Internet]. Madrid: Maldita. c2020. [Cited 2020 July 2]. Available from:
  51. [Internet]. Madrid: Newtral. c2020. [Cited 2020 July 2]. Available from:
  52. Fraustino JD, Liu BF, Jin Y. Social media during disasters: A research synthesis and road map. In: Austin L, Jin Y, editors. Social media and crisis communication. New York: Routledge; 2017. pp. 283–295.
  53. Agulló J. Entender el consumo de medios durante la pandemia del Coronavirus [Internet]. Madrid: ComsCore. c2020 Apr 17. [Cited 2020 July 2]. Available from: Spanish.
  54. Pradhan P, Pandey AK, Mishra A, Gupta P, Tripathi PK, Menon MB, et al. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. bioRxiv. 2020 Jan 31. pmid:32511314
  55. Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: Results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2020 March 20;56(1):105949. pmid:32205204
  56. Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020 May 22:1–10. Retraction in: Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F, Patel AN. RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: A multinational registry analysis. Lancet. 2020 May 29:1–10. pmid:32450107
  57. Leiserowitz A, Maibach E, Roser-Renouf C, Feinberg G, Rosenthal S. Climate change in the American mind. Yale Project on Climate Change Communication. New Haven, CT: Yale University and George Mason University; 2015. p. 1–62. Available from:
  58. Graves L. Deciding what’s true: The rise of political fact-checking in American journalism. New York: Columbia University Press; 2016.