Abstract
Background
Infectious diseases often come with enormous fear because of their ability to spark and spread. The same for COVID‐19, which WHO declared a pandemic in February 2020 after a record spread in multiple countries. The global world of information and social media plays a major role in the pandemic. Hence, this study aims to analyse the patterns of internet search and research interests on COVID‐19 in Nigeria.
Methods
This is an infoveillance and bibliometric research about COVID‐19 in Nigeria using systemic search through Google Trends to obtain COVID‐19 information prevalence and research incidence through bibliometric analysis using SCOPUS database. The data obtained were analysed using the Microsoft Excel 2021 software. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, mean, range and mode) were used for the summarisation of the data. The findings were presented using texts, tables, charts and maps.
Results
The information search spike started 1 week before the first index case. Search volume index inequalities were observed across the country, with the northern Nigeria having a higher search volume for COVID‐19. This study also uncovered several top search terms, including “COVID‐19,” “COVID loan” and “vaccine,” and queries, including “COVID‐19 Nigeria,” “COVID loan” and “COVID‐19 in Nigeria,” among others, which showed critical infodemiologic concerns in Nigeria. The interests of Nigerian researchers concerning COVID‐19 cut across various disciplines. The top three subject areas with the most significant volume of these publications were Medicine, Social Sciences and Biochemistry. This study found extensive research collaboration with over 150 countries coupled with external funding.
Conclusion
As internet search spikes reflect population health concerns and information‐wish, understanding the infodemic patterns and search terms will influence mass media regulators and health authorities to be vigilant and tackle the spread of misinformation. Nigeria's research resilience depicts great potential, hence, a call for improved local funding for research and development.
Keywords: bibliometric analysis, coronavirus, Google search, infoveillance study, research, information search, COVID‐19, pandemic, Nigeria
INTRODUCTION
The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID‐19) remains a global health shocker with enormous socioeconomic devastations. It was a major health emergency that shocked the world, like the Black Death of 1348‐135 and influenza (1918 and 1920), each killing over 50 million people [1, 2]. The modern era has faced a tremendous threat of infectious diseases, of which the human immune‐deficiency virus, which started in the early 1980s, has been the most horrific. So far, it has infected more than 70 million people and killed more than half of them [3]. The previous international health emergencies of the last decade (2012–2022) include the Avian flu, Zika virus (2015–2016) and Ebola crisis in West Africa (2014–2015) – the diseases were mostly zoonoses, which created panic waves at different times across the globe [4]. Infectious diseases often come with enormous fear because of their ability to spark and spread through physical contact with infected persons and their body fluids. The same for COVID‐19, which WHO declared a pandemic in February 2020 after a record spread in multiple countries. As of 7 July 2022, COVID‐19 has been reported in almost all countries, infecting over 557 million people and killing more than 6.3 million people [5]. One significant dimension of the pandemic is the infodemic.
The global world of information and social media plays a major role in the pandemic. Infodemic refers to the availability of a flood of information, either credible or not, which influence public perception of a trending issue. Efforts are geared towards making accurate COVID‐19 information available through infoveillance. The rise of search engines and social media (including Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp, TikTok, YouTube, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn and among others) has made information widely available, sometimes beyond human imagination. No wonder the first significant way of sustaining public interest is to make information available that could be assessed through various social media platforms. In the COVID‐19 era, people's responsiveness must be sustained by seeking more information about the various aspects of the pandemic. This is why there is the development of Infodemiology as the “science or study of the determinants of health information and misinformation” [6] and their implications for population health interventions.
Nigeria is the primary focus of this research. The country recorded its first case of COVID‐19 on 27 February 2020. Since then, Nigeria has recorded over 257,000 COVID‐19 cases, with over 3000 deaths. Before the first reported case, panic waves and curiosities were disseminated through the media. The media are embedded with values and issues [7] and sometimes with media hype and uncertainties, which necessitate seeking more information, primarily through social media and search engines. The scientific community is also motivated to research emerging issues for more clarification and understanding. It was noted that it is critical to analyse “how people search and navigate the Internet for health‐related information, as well as how they communicate and share this information [8]” to get crucial insights into health‐related (online) behaviour of populations. Although online information is virtual, it invariably influences offline behaviours. Health‐related lay perception and anxieties can be obtained through infoveillance. Therefore, this is an infoveillance and bibliometric research about COVID‐19 in Nigeria using systemic search (via Google Trends) analysis to obtain COVID‐19 information prevalence, spike dynamics and research incidence to document (via bibliometric analysis) the trending nuances and research outputs.
METHODS
Study design
This study adopted the use of infoveillance and bibliometric review approaches. These two approaches have been used extensively in the literature [9, 10, 11, 12].
Databases
The infoveillance approach used was Google Trends database, whereas the SCOPUS database was used for the bibliometric analysis. These two databases have been extensively used in the literature [10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15].
Asides Google Trends search database, there are other online search databases that can be used for infoveillance studies; however, Google Trends is the most preferred database because it is the oldest one and it has broader global coverage, usage and comprehensiveness compared to other databases [10, 11]. Additionally, the analysis of infoveillance data obtained from Google Trends provides insightful information on public interests; it also explores the epidemiological features and dynamic variations in infectious diseases such as COVID‐19 [10, 14, 15]. Hence, the above justifies the use of Google Trends for this study.
The SCOPUS research database was solely used for the bibliometric analysis part of this study because the database is the largest, oldest and most comprehensive research database in the world [12, 13]. Another justification for the sole use of SCOPUS was that the utilisation of multiple databases often limits the opportunity to perform a rich bibliometric analysis due to the difficulty in synchronising bibliometric data obtained from multiple databases [13].
Data search and extraction
On 04 July 2022, we searched Google Trends using the search term “COVID‐19.” In the search process, the search command was set so that it will scoop out data on COVID‐19 searches in Nigeria alone, from 2004 to 26 June 2022, all categories of search, and web searches [11]. From the search, infoveillance data such as search volume index (SVI), names of political states, rising queries, top queries, rising topics, top topics and time (months and years) were obtained concerning COVID‐19. The data obtained were exported in a comma‐separate value (.csv) format for analysis.
On the same day – 04 July 2022 – we searched SCOPUS, with the aid of truncations, using this search string: “(TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (covid*) OR TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (sars‐cov‐2) OR TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (coronavir*) OR TITLE‐ABS‐KEY (corona AND vir*) AND AFFILCOUNTRY (Nigeria).” The following bibliometric data were obtained from the search: citation data, bibliographical data, funder details, h‐index and journal CiteScore 2021). The citation data included authors’ names, journal names, publication type, citation count and volume, year, issue and page numbers of those publications. The bibliographical data included institutional and country affiliations, publication language and subject areas. The CiteScore 2021 is a ranking of the impact of a journal, and it is determined by SCOPUS using this formula:
Lastly, the h‐index is a measure of influence level, and it is defined as the total number of h publications cited at least h times [9].
Data analysis
The data obtained were analysed using the Microsoft Excel 2021 software. Descriptive statistics (frequencies, mean, range and mode) were used for the summarisation of the data. The findings were presented using texts, tables, charts and map.
Ethical considerations
This study did not collect data from animals or humans; all data collected were from open repositories which do not require prior permission before access. Hence, approval from an ethics committee to conduct this study is not applicable.
RESULTS
Search interest
Figure 1 shows the trend of SVIs of COVID‐19, in Nigeria, on Google Trends from 09 August 2017 to 26 June 2022. From 09 August 2017 to 02 February 2020, the SVI of COVID‐19 was zero. At periods latter to 02 February 2020, the SVIs were >1. There were multiple spike periods on COVID‐19 search in the year 2020–2022; however, the period with the greatest spike was 22 February 2020.
FIGURE 1.
The trend of search volume indexes (SVIs) of COVID‐19, in Nigeria, on Google Trends.
All the states in Nigeria had a COVID‐19 SVI of at least 10 over the analysed period. The state with the lowest SVI was Lagos, whereas that with the highest SVI was Zamfara (Table 1).
TABLE 1.
Ranking of states in Nigeria based on search volume index (SVI).
| Rank | State | SVI | Rank | State | SVI | Rank | State | SVI | Rank | State | SVI |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1st | Zamfara | 100 | 11th | Benue | 44 | 21st | Cross River | 23 | 31st | Rivers | 16 |
| 2nd | Yobe | 93 | 12th | Adamawa | 37 | 21st | Kaduna | 23 | 31st | Abia | 16 |
| 3rd | Kebbi | 85 | 13th | Ebonyi | 30 | 23rd | Oyo | 20 | 31st | Ogun | 16 |
| 4th | Gombe | 73 | 14th | Kano | 29 | 24th | Ondo | 19 | 34th | Anambra | 14 |
| 5th | Jigawa | 69 | 15th | Niger | 28 | 24th | Osun | 19 | 35th | Edo | 13 |
| 6th | Taraba | 67 | 15th | Kogi | 28 | 26th | Federal Capital Territory | 18 | 35th | Delta | 13 |
| 7th | Bauchi | 60 | 17th | Bayelsa | 27 | 27th | Ekiti | 18 | 37th | Lagos | 10 |
| 8th | Sokoto | 57 | 17th | Plateau | 27 | 28th | Enugu | 17 | |||
| 9th | Borno | 56 | 19th | Akwa Ibom | 25 | 28th | Kwara | 17 | |||
| 10th | Katsina | 47 | 20th | Nasarawa | 24 | 30th | Imo | 16 |
A geopolitical zone‐based descriptive analysis of the COVID‐19 SVIs showed that the states in the northern zones of Nigeria had the highest mean SVIs. The zone with the widest range of SVI was Northwestern Nigeria (Table 2).
TABLE 2.
Descriptive statistics on search volume index (SVI) per geopolitical zone of Nigeria.
| Geopolitical Zone | TNS | NS | SVI | Rank a | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Range | Mean | Mode | ||||
| Southwest | 6 | Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo | 10–20 | 17 | 19 | 4th |
| Southeast | 5 | Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, Imo | 14–30 | 18.6 | 16 | 5th |
| South–south | 6 | Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Rivers, Edo, and Delta | 13–27 | 19.5 | 13 | 6th |
| North central | 7 | Benue, Kogi, Kwara, Nasarawa, Niger, Plateau, and Federal Capital Territory | 17–44 | 26.6 | 28 | 3rd |
| Northeast | 6 | Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, Yobe | 37–93 | 64.3 | Nil | 1st |
| Northwest | 7 | Jigawa, Kaduna, Kano, Katsina, Kebbi, Sokoto and Zamfara | 23–100 | 58.6 | Nil | 2nd |
Abbreviations: NS, names of states; TNS, total number of states.
Ranking was based on mean SVI.
The lists of the top 10 related topics and queries on COVID‐19 are depicted in Table 3. “Coronavirus disease 2019” (SVI = 100), “loan” (SVI = 23), and “vaccine” or “COVID‐19 vaccine” (SVI = 6) were the top three related topics, whereas “COVID‐19 loan” (SVI = 100), “COVID‐19 Nigeria” (SVI = 78) and “COVID‐19 in Nigeria” (SVI = 58) were the top three related queries.
TABLE 3.
The list of top 10 related topics and queries on COVID‐19.
| Top related topics | Top related queries | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Topic | SVI | Rank | Query | SVI |
| 1st | Coronavirus disease 2019 | 100 | 1st | COVID‐19 loan | 100 |
| 2nd | Loan | 23 | 2nd | COVID‐19 Nigeria | 78 |
| 3rd | Vaccine | 6 | 3rd | COVID‐19 in Nigeria | 58 |
| 3rd | COVID‐19 vaccine | 6 | 4th | COVID | 54 |
| 5th | Coronavirus | 4 | 5th | COVID‐19 | 39 |
| 5th | Funding | 4 | 6th | COVID‐19 vaccine | 22 |
| 7th | Symptoms of COVID‐19 | 3 | 7th | COVID‐19 news | 21 |
| 7th | Preventive healthcare | 3 | 8th | NIRSAL | 19 |
| 7th | Central Bank of Nigeria | 3 | 9th | NIRSAL COVID‐19 loan | 18 |
| 10th | Pandemic | 2 | 9th | NIRSAL loan | 18 |
Abbreviation: SVI, search volume index.
The lists of the top 10 rising related topics and queries on COVID‐19 are depicted in Table 4. All these 10 topics and queries had a percentage increase in search by >5000%. However, “Coronavirus disease 2019,” “loan” and “vaccine” were the top three rising related topics, whereas “COVID‐19 loan,” “COVID‐19 Nigeria” and “COVID‐19 in Nigeria” were the top three rising associated queries.
TABLE 4.
The list of top 10 rising related topics and queries on COVID‐19.
| Rising related topics | Rising related queries | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rank | Topic | PI | Rank | Query | PI |
| 1st | Coronavirus disease 2019 | Breakout | 1st | COVID‐19 loan | Breakout |
| 2nd | Loan | Breakout | 2nd | COVID‐19 Nigeria | Breakout |
| 3rd | Vaccine | Breakout | 3rd | COVID‐19 in Nigeria | Breakout |
| 4th | COVID‐19 vaccine | Breakout | 4th | COVID | Breakout |
| 5th | Coronavirus | Breakout | 5th | COVID‐19 | Breakout |
| 6th | Funding | Breakout | 6th | COVID‐19 vaccine | Breakout |
| 7th | Symptoms of COVID‐19 | Breakout | 7th | COVID‐19 news | Breakout |
| 8th | Preventive healthcare | Breakout | 8th | NIRSAL | Breakout |
| 9th | Central Bank of Nigeria | Breakout | 9th | NIRSAL COVID‐19 loan | Breakout |
| 10th | Pandemic | Breakout | 10th | NIRSAL loan | Breakout |
Abbreviation: PI, percentage increase.
Research interest
A total of 2331 publications on COVID‐19, published from 2019 till 04 July 2022 are available on the SCOPUS database (Figure 2). The year‐trend of the volume of these outputs steadily increased from 2019 to 2021. Between January 2022 and 04 July 2022, only 561 outputs were published, and this was less than half of the volume of what was published in the year 2021.
FIGURE 2.
Trend analysis of annual outputs on COVID‐19 on the SCOPUS database (2019 to 04 July 2022).
The distribution of these COVID‐19 publications is depicted in Figure 3. The top three subject areas with the greatest volume of these publications were Medicine (TP = 1259), Social Sciences (TP = 452) and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology (TP = 252), whereas the three subject areas with the smallest volume of these publications were Dentistry (TP = 8), Veterinary (TP = 15) and Chemical Engineering (TP = 17).
FIGURE 3.
The distribution of COVID‐19 publications in Nigeria by subject areas.
The distribution of COVID‐19 publications in Nigeria by publication type is depicted in Table 5. The top three most common publication types were article (TP = 1555 [66.7%]; h‐index = 44), review (TP = 295 [12.7%]; h‐index = 27) and letter (TP = 146 [6.3%]; h‐index = 16).
TABLE 5.
Distribution of COVID‐19 publications in Nigeria by publication type.
| Publication type | TP (%) | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Article | 1555 (66.7) | 10017 | 6.4 | 44 | 1st |
| Review | 295 (12.7) | 4002 | 13.6 | 27 | 2nd |
| Letter | 146 (6.3) | 732 | 5.0 | 16 | 3rd |
| Note | 115 (4.9) | 1809 | 15.7 | 19 | 4th |
| Conference paper | 82 (3.5) | 70 | 0.9 | 5 | 5th |
| Book chapter | 75 (3.2) | 87 | 1.2 | 6 | 6th |
| Editorial | 37 (1.6) | 335 | 9.1 | 8 | 7th |
| Data paper | 10 (0.4) | 128 | 12.8 | 5 | 8th |
| Erratum | 9 (0.4) | 3 | 0.3 | 1 | 9th |
| Short survey | 7 (0.3) | 70 | 10 | 3 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, average citations per paper; TC, total citations; TP, total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
A total of 159 countries/territories/dependencies had collaborated with Nigeria in COVID‐19 publications (Figure 4). However, the top 10 countries collaborating with Nigeria with the highest volume of productivity were the United Kingdom (TP = 509 [21.8%]; h‐index = 38), USA (TP = 502 [21.5%]; h‐index = 35), and South Africa (TP = 348 [14.9%]; h‐index = 26). Pertinently, only South Africa and Egypt were the only African countries/territories/dependencies that made this list (Table 6).
FIGURE 4.
Global distribution of countries/territories/dependencies that have collaborated with Nigeria in COVID‐19 publications.
TABLE 6.
List of top 10 countries collaborating with Nigeria in COVID‐19 research.
| Country | Continent | TP (%) | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | Europe | 509 (21.8) | 7736 | 15.2 | 38 | 1st |
| United States | North America | 502 (21.5) | 6988 | 13.9 | 35 | 2nd |
| South Africa | Africa | 348 (14.9) | 2676 | 7.7 | 26 | 3rd |
| India | Asia | 259 (11.1) | 4261 | 16.5 | 27 | 4th |
| China | Asia | 173 (7.4) | 1809 | 10.5 | 21 | 5th |
| Pakistan | Asia | 165 (7.1) | 2117 | 12.8 | 22 | 6th |
| Canada | North America | 163 (7.0) | 4256 | 26.1 | 25 | 7th |
| Australia | Australia | 152 (6.5) | 3176 | 20.9 | 22 | 8th |
| Egypt | Africa | 144 (6.2) | 1594 | 11.1 | 21 | 9th |
| Saudi Arabia | Asia | 140 (6.0) | 2187 | 15.6 | 22 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, average citations per paper; TC, total citations; TP, total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
Table 7 shows the list of the top 10 local institutions in Nigeria sourcing COVID‐19 publications. All those institutions that made the list were owned by the Federal Government of Nigeria, and seven tenths of them were situated in the southern parts of Nigeria – majority (71.4% [5/7]) of which were in the Southwestern Nigeria geopolitical zone. The three most productive institutions were University of Ibadan (n = 368 [15.8%]; h‐index = 27), University of Nigeria (TP = 226 [9.7%]; h‐index = 13) and University of Ilorin (TP = 153 [6.6%]; h‐index = 21).
TABLE 7.
The list of the top 10 local institutions in Nigeria sourcing COVID‐19 publications.
| Local institutions | GPZ | Ownership | TP (%) | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Ibadan | SWN | FG | 368 (15.8) | 3204 | 8.7 | 27 | 1st |
| University of Nigeria | SEN | FG | 226 (9.7) | 800 | 3.5 | 13 | 2nd |
| University of Ilorin | NCN | FG | 153 (6.6) | 1426 | 9.3 | 21 | 3rd |
| University of Lagos | SWN | FG | 142 (6.1) | 1183 | 8.3 | 16 | 4th |
| Bayero University | NWN | FG | 110 (4.7) | 1122 | 10.2 | 19 | 5th |
| Ahmadu Bello University | NWN | FG | 106 (4.5) | 612 | 5.8 | 14 | 6th |
| Obafemi Awolowo University | SWN | FG | 99 (4.2) | 565 | 5.7 | 13 | 7th |
| University College Hospital | SWN | FG | 96 (4.1) | 2126 | 22.1 | 15 | 8th |
| Federal University of Technology Akure | SWN | FG | 90 (3.9) | 829 | 9.2 | 14 | 9th |
| University of Calabar | SSN | FG | 87 (3.8) | 778 | 8.9 | 12 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, average citations per paper; FG, Federal Government; GPZ, geopolitical zone; NCN, North Central Nigeria; NWN, Northwestern Nigeria; SEN, Southeastern Nigeria; SSN, Southsouthern Nigeria; SWN, Southwestern Nigeria; TC, total citations; TP, total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
Table 8 shows the list of the top 10 foreign institutions collaborating with Nigeria in sourcing COVID‐19 publications. All those institutions that made the list were owned by governments, and none was privately owned. Only four tenths of these institutions were situated in a foreign African country, and all of them were in South Africa. The top three most productive foreign collaborating institutions were the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine (TP = 116 [5.0%]; h‐index = 20), University of Kwazulu‐Natal (TP = 67 [2.9%]; h‐index = 13) and University of Cape Town (TP = 65 [2.8%]; h‐index = 11).
TABLE 8.
The list of the top 10 foreign institutions collaborating with Nigeria in sourcing COVID‐19 publications.
| Foreign institutions | Country | Ownership | TP | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine | United Kingdom | Government | 116 (5.0) | 1982 | 17.1 | 20 | 1st |
| University of Kwazulu‐Natal | South Africa | Government | 67 (2.9) | 734 | 11.0 | 13 | 2nd |
| University of Cape Town | South Africa | Government | 65 (2.8) | 434 | 6.7 | 11 | 3rd |
| Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (World Health Organization) | Switzerland | Government | 63 (2.7) | 439 | 7.0 | 12 | 4th |
| University College of London | United Kingdom | Government | 62 (2.7) | 2568 | 41.4 | 17 | 5th |
| Imperial College London | United Kingdom | Government | 47 (2.0) | 439 | 9.3 | 13 | 6th |
| University of Pretoria | South Africa | Government | 46 (2.0) | 273 | 5.9 | 9 | 7th |
| Karolinska Institutet | Sweden | Government | 44 (1.9) | 1537 | 34.9 | 14 | 8th |
| Stellenbosch University | South Africa | Government | 43 (1.8) | 603 | 14.0 | 12 | 9th |
| Universiti Sains Malaysia | Malaysia | Government | 40 (1.7) | 672 | 16.8 | 13 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, average citations per paper; TC, total citations; TP, total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
Table 9 shows the list of top 10 Nigerian authors of COVID‐19 publications. The majority (60% [6/10]) of these authors were affiliated to institutions situated in the Southwestern Nigeria geopolitical zone. Adebisi YA (TP = 47 [2.0%]; h‐index = 11), affiliated to the University of Ibadan; Aborode AT (TP = 35 [1.5%]; h‐index = 9), affiliated to the Healthy Africans Platform; and Ihekweazu CA (TP = 26 [1.1%]; h‐index = 11), affiliated to the Nigeria Centre for Disease Control were the top three authors in this list.
TABLE 9.
The list of top 10 Nigerian authors of COVID‐19 publications.
| Authors | Institution | GPZ | TP (%) | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adebisi, Yusuff Adebayo | University of Ibadan | SWN | 47 (2.0) | 347 | 7.4 | 11 | 1st |
| Aborode, Abdullahi Tunde | Healthy Africans Platform | SWN | 35 (1.5) | 175 | 5.0 | 9 | 2nd |
| Ihekweazu, Chikwe A | Nigeria Centre for Disease Control | NCN | 26 (1.1) | 1162 | 44.7 | 11 | 3rd |
| Ilesanmi, Olayinka Stephen | University of Ibadan | SWN | 24 (1.0) | 152 | 6.3 | 7 | 4th |
| Salisu, Afees Adebare | University of Ibadan | SWN | 22 (0.9) | 540 | 24.5 | 9 | 5th |
| Folayan, Morenike O | Obafemi Awolowo University | SWN | 21 (0.9) | 198 | 9.4 | 7 | 6th |
| Sam‐Agudu, Nadia Adjoa | Institute of Human Virology | NCN | 20 (0.9) | 363 | 18.2 | 9 | 7th |
| Musa, Salihu Sabiu | Kano University of Science and Technology | NWN | 19 (0.8) | 154 | 8.1 | 7 | 8th |
| Awotunde, Joseph Bamidele | University of Ilorin | NCN | 18 (0.7) | 79 | 4.4 | 5 | 9th |
| Adiukwu, Frances N | University of Port Harcourt | SSN | 15 (0.6) | 284 | 18.9 | 7 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, average citations per paper; FG, Federal Government; GPZ, geopolitical zone; NCN, North Central Nigeria; NWN, Northwestern Nigeria; SEN, Southeastern Nigeria; SSN, Southsouthern Nigeria; SWN, Southwestern Nigeria; TC, total citations; TP, total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
Table 10 shows the list of the top 10 institutions funding COVID‐19 research projects in Nigeria. None of these institutions was headquartered in Africa; moreover, none of them was indigenous. Only 2 out of these 10 institutions were private. Those funding institutions headquartered in the USA constituted the majority (50% [5/10]) of those institutions in this list. The top three institutions in the list were the National Institutes of Health (TP = 72 [3.1%]; h‐index = 14), Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (TP = 36 [1.5%]; h‐index = 12) and Wellcome Trust (TP = 32 [1.4%]; h‐index = 9).
TABLE 10.
The list of the top 10 institutions funding COVID‐19 research projects in Nigeria.
| Funding Institutions | Ownership | HQ (country) | TP (%) | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| National Institutes of Health | Government | USA | 72 (3.1) | 742 | 10.3 | 14 | 1st |
| Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation | Private | USA | 36 (1.5) | 575 | 16.0 | 12 | 2nd |
| Wellcome Trust | Private | United Kingdom | 32 (1.4) | 1548 | 48.4 | 9 | 3rd |
| US Department of Health and Human Services | Government | USA | 26 (1.1) | 133 | 5.1 | 6 | 4th |
| Fogarty International Center | Government | USA | 24 (1.0) | 406 | 16.9 | 10 | 5th |
| National Institute for Health Research | Government | United Kingdom | 23 (1.0) | 339 | 14.7 | 7 | 6th |
| World Health Organization | Government | Switzerland | 21 (0.9) | 153 | 7.3 | 7 | 7th |
| European Commission | Government | Belgium | 20 (0.9) | 183 | 9.2 | 8 | 8th |
| National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases | Government | USA | 20 (0.9) | 1101 | 55.1 | 10 | 9th |
| Medical Research Council | Government | United Kingdom | 18 (0.8) | 1448 | 80.4 | 7 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, Average citations per paper; HQ, Headquarters; TC, Total citations; TP, Total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
Table 11 shows the list of the top 10 journals publishing COVID‐19 papers authored by Nigerian researchers. Only one of the publishers of these journals was headquartered in Kenya, whereas the rest were in the USA, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Switzerland. Amongst these journals, the Journal of Medical Virology had the highest CiteScore 2021 (n = 18.8). The top three most productive journals were Pan African Medical Journal (TP = 118 [5.1%]; h‐index = 9), American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (TP = 37 [1.6%]; h‐index = 12) and PLoS One (TP = 34 [1.5%]; h‐index = 7).
TABLE 11.
The list of the top 10 journals publishing COVID‐19 papers authored by Nigerian researchers.
| Journals | CiteScore 2021 | Publisher (HQ) | TP (%) | TC | ACP | h‐Index | Rank a |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pan African Medical Journal | 1.0 | Pan African Medical Journal (Kenya) | 118 (5.1) | 382 | 3.2 | 9 | 1st |
| American Journal of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene | 4.4 | American Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene (USA) | 37 (1.6) | 395 | 10.7 | 12 | 2nd |
| PLoS One | 5.6 | Public Library of Science (USA) | 34 (1.5) | 235 | 6.9 | 7 | 3rd |
| BMJ Global Health | 7.2 | BMJ Publishing Group (United Kingdom) | 30 (1.3) | 475 | 15.8 | 9 | 4th |
| Library Philosophy and Practice | 0.4 | University of Nebraska‐Lincoln (USA) | 29 (1.2) | 25 | 0.9 | 3 | 5th |
| International Journal of Infectious Diseases | 10.8 | Elsevier (the Netherlands) | 21 (0.9) | 477 | 22.7 | 11 | 6th |
| Journal of Global Health | 5.1 | Edinburgh University Global Health Society (United Kingdom) | 20 (0.9) | 62 | 3.1 | 3 | 7th |
| Journal of Medical Virology | 18.8 | Wiley‐Blackwell (USA) | 17 (0.7) | 234 | 13.8 | 9 | 8th |
| Scientific African | 2.4 | Elsevier (the Netherlands) | 17 (0.7) | 38 | 2.2 | 2 | 8th |
| Frontiers in Public Health | 4.0 | Frontiers Media S.A. (Switzerland) | 16 (0.7) | 56 | 3.5 | 5 | 10th |
Abbreviations: ACP, Average citations per paper; HQ, Headquarters; TC, Total citations; TP, Total publications.
Rank was based on TP.
DISCUSSION
COVID‐19 pandemic, as it is novel, is characterised by the need for information. This study is an infoveillance and bibliometric research to obtain COVID‐19 information prevalence and COVID‐19 research productivity in Nigeria. This study aims not only to examine the spread of accurate and inaccurate information but also to assess the information‐wish and efforts in getting information by the Nigerian population, trending nuances and research incidence, among others. The information search spike started 1 week before the first confirmed case. The search spike conforms with a previous analysis that online searches follow COVID‐19 trend, with early online activities (mostly 12 days) before confirmed cases and deaths [16, 17]. The early search spike in Nigeria coincided with the information from the Minister of Health that the country was prepared for a possible COVID‐19 outbreak.
The Minister was quoted to have said that Nigeria was “prepared and ready to contain the novel coronavirus disease, if eventually, it breaks out in Nigeria” [18]. The Minister made the statement when inspecting facilities at the Emergency Response Readiness for COVID‐19 victims in the country entry hub, Lagos. At that time, the Minister could not have estimated the possible magnitude of the pandemic but believed that the country's robust surveillance system and lessons learned from the Ebola episode of 2014 would help tackle the impeding COVID‐19 [18]. There were a lot of reactions and counter‐reaction, and information wishes. This could explain the spike in online information searches across Nigeria about COVID‐19.
SVI inequalities were observed across the country, with the northern parts of Nigeria having a higher search volume for COVID‐19. Northern Nigeria generally has a lower internet penetration and search density than the South. Hence, COVID‐19 dominated the search item within the period. The 21st century has been characterised by the effective use of internet searches, mostly by the youth. The internet is an established medium for health information and a primary socialising agent concerning health and illness behaviour. Despite the challenges of online health information search, such as unreliable and slow connection, high cost of Internet and unreliable power supply in most low‐income countries, most people still rely on online health information for lay diagnosis and general health support [19, 20, 21].
This study also uncovered several top search terms, including “COVID‐19,” “COVID loan” and “vaccine,” and queries, including “COVID‐19 Nigeria,” “COVID loan” and “COVID‐19 in Nigeria,” among others. This shows critical epidemiologic concerns in Nigeria. Previous studies show that disease symptoms are top search priorities [16, 22]. This study indicates that Nigerians’ concern for livelihood survival strategies, such as COVID‐19 loans, supersedes the symptom concern. These search terms and queries are important in understanding infodemiology vis à vis public interests/concerns. The first search concern is general information about the disease followed, much later, by personal health strategies [22].
This study shows the need to understand the imperative of online health information‐seeking behaviour and online health communication, which has been a significant crux in COVID‐19 infodemiology or infoveillance, especially during the pandemic (see also [23, 24]). Perhaps, it was not surprising that a higher incidence of COVID‐19 cases was translated to a higher number of COVID‐19 queries on Google [25]. The Internet became a truth or fact‐seeking platform because of the available volume of unsolicited online COVID‐19 information and hashtags, especially on social media. Hence, the monikers “coronavirus 5G,” “coronavirus conspiracy” and “tips and cures for COVID‐19” trended during the pandemic [25]. Understanding the infodemic patterns and search terms will influence mass media regulators and health authorities to be vigilant and tackle the spread of misinformation.
This study also noted the spike in or emerged research interest of Nigerian researchers concerning COVID‐19. The research interest was not compared to other countries. However, the pandemic trend positively correlated with the research outputs or productivity concerning COVID‐19 in most countries, including Nigeria (see also [26, 27, 28]). There was also a research output spike during the pandemic, and as the global prevalence increased, so was the number of scientific reports/articles. The emerged COVID‐19 research interest is without prejudice to the general disruption of the scientific enterprise [29], mainly due to lockdown and deglobalisation. For instance, a decline in hours spent on research and in new research projects and co‐authorship has been reported [29]. It is thus essential to acknowledge the scientific resilience during the pandemic, which generated commendable research outputs in Nigeria and elsewhere. The research trend in Nigeria stably confirms the assertion that research productivity during the COVID‐19 pandemic “correlates with epidemiologic, health care system‐related and health economic factors, and pre‐COVID publication expertise” [26]. Hence, most countries with research culture maintained scientific resilience to produce COVID‐19 publications at high rates [26].
The research productivity cuts across various disciplines. The top three subject areas with the most significant volume of these publications were Medicine, Social Sciences and Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology. A multidisciplinary approach, to COVID‐19 research, with the involvement of social sciences, is imperative, and critical for future pandemic prevention and preparedness (see also [30, 31, 32]). There was also magnificent collaboration for COVID‐19 research. This study found that researchers from over 150 countries collaborated with Nigerian researchers on COVID‐19 research. However, the top 10 collaborating countries with the highest volume of productivity were the United Kingdom, USA and South Africa. This research result contradicted a submission that collaborations worldwide were strongly related to geographical location [33]. The top three most productive foreign collaborating institutions were the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, University of Kwazulu‐Natal and University of Cape Town. However, none of the top 10 institutions funding COVID‐19 research projects in Nigeria is a local institution or headquartered in Africa. The USA funding institutions constituted the majority (50% [5/10]) of those institutions in the top 10. This further shows that most research funding in Nigeria and Africa comes from external funding (see also [34, 35]), but Africa's future research agenda should greatly be shaped by local funding and support.
CONCLUSION
In almost all countries, internet searches for COVID‐related information were massive, with significant effects on control efforts. It signifies the need for information, a kind of void which the concerned authorities should fill. Information consumption must be controlled, especially during emergencies, to ensure that accurate information overflows the inaccurate ones. This indicates that online search data can be used to develop public health infoveillance intervention which will help inform future emergency response. The utility of digital information epidemiology in providing valuable surveillance data of disease outbreaks should always be a priority. Internet search spikes reflect clinical manifestations of the disease and public concerns, which often correlate significantly with real‐world cases and deaths. There was scientific resilience in the form of COVID‐19 research output during the pandemic. The research productivity cuts across various disciplines with magnificent collaboration across various countries. This research resilience depicts great potential, hence, a call for improved local funding for research and development.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
Conceptualisation; resources; supervision; validation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing: Jimoh Amzat. Conceptualisation; data curation; formal analysis; funding acquisition; investigation; methodology; project administration; resources; software; supervision; validation; visualisation; writing – original draft; writing – review and editing: Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi. Data curation; formal analysis; resources: Eyinade Adeduntan Egbedina. Jimoh Amzat and Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi contributed to this paper equally.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
Authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
FUNDING INFORMATION
This study was self‐funded.
ETHICS STATEMENT
Not applicable.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors of this study acknowledge Prof. Edward Kunonga and Dr Lawrence Achilles Nnyanzi for providing technical advice concerning the project.
Amzat J, Kanmodi KK, Egbedina EA. Infoveillance and bibliometric analysis of COVID‐19 in Nigeria. Public Health Chall. 2023;2:e77. 10.1002/puh2.77
Jimoh Amzat and Kehinde Kazeem Kanmodi contributed equally.
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.
REFERENCES
- 1. Mamelund S. Influenza, historical. In: International encyclopedia of public health. 2nd ed. Elsevier; 2017:247‐257. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-12-803678-5.00232-0 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Amzat J, Razum O. Globalization and health: the case of COVID‐19. In: Globalization, health and the Global South: a critical approach. Routledge; 2022. doi: 10.4324/9781003247975-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 3. World Health Organization . Why the HIV epidemic is not over. [Internet]. Accessed on 2022. https://www.who.int/news‐room/spotlight/why‐the‐hiv‐epidemic‐is‐not‐over
- 4. Amzat J, Razum O. Globalization and infectious diseases. In: Globalization, health and the Global South: a critical approach. Routledge; 2022. doi: 10.4324/9781003247975-6 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Worldometers . Coronavirus pandemic update [Internet].Accessed on 2022. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/
- 6. Infodemiology EG. The epidemiology of (mis)information. Am J Med. 2002;113(9):763‐765. doi: 10.1016/s0002-9343(02)01473-0 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7. Amzat J, Abodunrin AJ, Okunola RA. The print media and crime: values and issues. Int J Crim Justice Sci. 2007;2(1):63‐75. [Google Scholar]
- 8. Eysenbach G. Infodemiology and infoveillance: framework for an emerging set of public health informatics methods to analyze search, communication and publication behavior on the Internet. J Med Internet Res. 2009;11(1):e11. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1157 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Donthu N, Kumar S, Mukherjee D, Pandey N, Lim WM. How to conduct a bibliometric analysis: an overview and guidelines. J Bus Res. 2021;133:285‐296. [Google Scholar]
- 10. Zhang H, Wang Y, Zheng Q, et al. Research interest and public interest in melanoma: a bibliometric and google trends analysis. Front Oncol. 2021;11:629687. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2021.629687 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Kanmodi KK, Abolade O, Amzat J, Nnyanzi LA. Analysis of global search and research interests on dentists using infoveillance and bibliometric approaches. Oral. 2023;3(1):11‐30. doi: 10.3390/oral3010002 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Kanmodi KK, Salami AA, Nwafor JN, Olomo CA, Nnyanzi LA. Trend analysis of global web searches (2004 ‐ 2022) on oral cancer and its major risk factors. J Health Allied Sci. doi: 10.1055/s-0042-1756479. Ahead of print. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Kanmodi KK, Nwafor JN, Salami AA, et al. A Scopus‐Based bibliometric analysis of global research contributions on milk fluoridation. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(14):8233. doi: 10.3390/ijerph19148233 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Ornos EDB, Tantengco OAG, Abad CLR. Global online interest in HIV/AIDS care services in the time of COVID‐19: a google trends analysis. AIDS Behav. 2022:1‐7. doi: 10.1007/s10461-022-03933-w. Epub ahead of print. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Portugal‐Nunes C, Cheng L, Briote M, Saraiva C, Nunes FM, Gonçalves C. COVID‐19 changes public awareness about food sustainability and dietary patterns: a google trends analysis. Nutrients. 2022;14(22):4898. doi: 10.3390/nu14224898 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Lampos V, Majumder MS, Yom‐Tov E, et al. Tracking COVID‐19 using online search. NPJ Digit Med. 2021;4(1):17. doi: 10.1038/s41746-021-00384-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. Higgins TS, Wu AW, Sharma D, Illing EA, Rubel K, Ting JY. Snot force alliance. correlations of online search engine trends with coronavirus disease (COVID‐19) incidence: infodemiology study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(2):e19702. doi: 10.2196/19702 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 18. Nigeria TD. Ready to Contain Coronavirus, Says Minister. [Internet]. https://www.thisdaylive.com/index.php/2020/02/10/nigeria‐ready‐to‐contain‐coronavirus‐says‐minister/ Published. 2022.
- 19. Osei Asibey B, Agyemang S, Boakye Dankwah A. The internet use for health information seeking among ghanaian university students: a cross‐sectional study. Int J Telemed Appl. 2017;2017:1756473. doi: 10.1155/2017/1756473. Epub. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Onyeka TC, Itanyi IU, Ezugwu HU, Allsop M. Learning about cardiac arrest from ‘Dr. Google’: a pre‐ and peri‐pandemic infodemiology study in Nigeria. Pan Afr Med J. 2022;42:22. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2022.42.22.34249 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21. Akakpo MG. The role of care‐seeking behavior and patient communication pattern in online health information‐seeking behavior – a cross‐sectional survey. Pan Afr Med J. 2022;42:124. doi: 10.11604/pamj.2022.42.124.33623 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Bento AI, Nguyen T, Wing C, Lozano‐Rojas F, Ahn YY, Simon K. Evidence from internet search data shows information‐seeking responses to news of local COVID‐19 cases. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2020;117(21):11220‐11222. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2005335117. Epub 2020. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Rovetta A, Bhagavathula AS. Global infodemiology of COVID‐19: analysis of google web searches and instagram hashtags. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(8):e20673. doi: 10.2196/20673 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Tudor C, Sova R. Infodemiological study on the impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on increased headache incidences at the world level. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):10253. doi: 10.1038/s41598-022-13663-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25. Rovetta A, Bhagavathula AS. The impact of COVID‐19 on mortality in Italy: retrospective analysis of epidemiological trends. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2022;8(4):e36022. doi: 10.2196/36022 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Müller SM, Mueller GF, Navarini AA, Brandt O. National publication productivity during the COVID‐19 pandemic‐a preliminary exploratory analysis of the 30 countries most affected. Biology (Basel). 2020;9(9):271. doi: 10.3390/biology9090271 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Strobl S, Roth W. Internationale wissenschaftliche Publikationsaktivität zu COVID‐19 [International publication activity during the COVID‐19 pandemic]. Pathologe. 2021;42(2):224‐230. doi: 10.1007/s00292-020-00892-8 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Taneja SL, Passi M, Bhattacharya S, Schueler SA, Gurram S, Koh C. Social media and research publication activity during early stages of the COVID‐19 pandemic: longitudinal trend analysis. J Med Internet Res. 2021;23(6):e26956. doi: 10.2196/26956 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Gao J, Yin Y, Myers KR, Lakhani KR, Wang D. Potentially long‐lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):6188. doi: 10.1038/s41467-021-26428-z [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Dada S, Battles H, Pilbeam C, Singh B, Solomon T, Gobat N. Learning from the past and present: social science implications for COVID‐19 immunity‐based documentation. Human Soc Sci Comm. 2021;8(1):1‐9. doi: 10.1057/s41599-021-00898-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Lees S, Sariola S, Schmidt‐Sane M, et al. COVID‐19 Clinical Research Coalition Social Science Working Group. Key social science priorities for long‐term COVID‐19 response. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(7):e006741. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-006741 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32. Pickersgill M, Smith M. Expertise from the humanities and social sciences is essential for governmental responses to COVID‐19. J Glob Health. 2021;11:03081. doi: 10.7189/jogh.11.03081 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 33. Liu YL, Yuan WJ, Zhu SH. The state of social science research on COVID‐19. Scientometrics. 2022;127(1):369‐383. doi: 10.1007/s11192-021-04206-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 34. Antonio E, Alobo M, Tufet BM, Marsh K, Norton A. Funding and COVID‐19 research priorities – are the research needs for Africa being met? AAS Open Res. 2020;3:56. doi: 10.12688/aasopenres.13162.1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 35. Guleid FH, Oyando R, Kabia E, Mumbi A, Akech S, Barasa E. A bibliometric analysis of COVID‐19 research in Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6(5):e005690. doi: 10.1136/bmjgh-2021-005690 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no new data were created or analysed in this study.