Why we fall for fake health information — and how it spreads faster than facts
Should you share that health-related Instagram post? (Catherine McQueen/Moment via Getty Images)
In today's digital world, people routinely turn to the internet for health or medical information. In addition to actively searching online, they often come across health-related information on social media or receive it through emails or messages from family or friends.
It can be tempting to share such messages with loved ones — often with the best of intentions.
As a global health communication scholar studying the effects of media on health and development, I explore artistic and creative ways to make health information more engaging and accessible, empowering people to make informed decisions.
Although there is a fire hose of health-related content online, not all of it is factual. In fact, much of it is inaccurate or misleading, raising a serious health communication problem: Fake health information — whether shared unknowingly and innocently, or deliberately to mislead or cause harm — can be far more captivating than accurate information.
This makes it difficult for people to know which sources to trust and which content is worthy of sharing.
Fake health information can take many forms. For example, it may be misleading content that distorts facts to frame an issue or individual in a certain context. Or it may be based on false connections, where headlines, visuals or captions don't align with the content. Despite this variation, such content often shares a few common characteristics that make it seem believable and more shareable than facts.
For one thing, fake health information often appears to be true because it mixes a grain of truth with misleading claims.
For example, early in the COVID-19 pandemic, false rumors suggested that drinking ethanol or bleach could protect people from the virus. While ethanol or bleach can indeed kill viruses on surfaces such as countertops, it is extremely dangerous when it comes into contact with skin or gets inside the body.
Another marker of fake health information is that it presents ideas that are simply too good to be true. There is something appealingly counterintuitive in certain types of fake health information that can make people feel they have access to valuable or exclusive knowledge that others may not know. For example, a claim such as 'chocolate helps you lose weight' can be especially appealing because it offers a sense of permission to indulge and taps into a simple, feel-good solution to a complex problem. Such information often spreads faster because it sounds both surprising and hopeful, validating what some people want to believe.
Sensationalism also drives the spread of fake health information. For instance, when critics falsely claimed that Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the chief medical adviser to the president at the time, was responsible for the COVID-19 pandemic, it generated a lot of public attention.
In a study on vaccine hesitancy published in 2020, my colleagues and I found that controversial headlines in news reports that go viral before national vaccination campaigns can discourage parents from getting their children vaccinated. These headlines seem to reveal sensational and secret information that can falsely boost the message's credibility.
The internet has created fertile ground for spreading fake health information. Professional-looking websites and social media posts with misleading headlines can lure people into clicking or quickly sharing, which drives more and more readers to the falsehood. People tend to share information they believe is relevant to them or their social circles.
In 2019, an article with the false headline 'Ginger is 10,000x more effective at killing cancer than chemo' was shared more than 800,000 times on Facebook. The article contained several factors that make people feel an urgency to react and share without checking the facts: compelling visuals, emotional stories, misleading graphs, quotes from experts with omitted context and outdated content that is recirculated.
Visual cues like the logos of reputable organizations or photos of people wearing white medical coats add credibility to these posts. This kind of content is highly shareable, often reaching far more people than scientifically accurate studies that may lack eye-catching headlines or visuals, easy-to-understand words or dramatic storylines.
But sharing content without verifying it first has real-world consequences. For example, studies have found that COVID-19-related fake information reduces people's trust in the government and in health care systems, making people less likely to use or seek out health services.
Unfounded claims about vaccine side effects have led to reduced vaccination rates globally, fueling the return of dangerous diseases, including measles.
Social media misinformation, such as false claims about cinnamon being a treatment for cancer, has caused hospitalizations and even deaths. The spread of health misinformation has reduced cooperation with important prevention and treatment recommendations, prompting a growing need for medical professionals to receive proper training and develop skills to effectively debunk fake health information.
In today's era of information overload, when anyone can create and share content, being able to distinguish between credible and misleading health information before sharing is more important than ever. Researchers and public health organizations have outlined several strategies to help people make better-informed decisions.
Whether health care consumers come across health information on social media, in an email or through a messaging app, here are three reliable ways to verify its accuracy and credibility before sharing:
Use a search engine to cross-check health claims. Never rely on a single source. Instead, enter the health claim into a reputable search engine like Google and see what trusted sources have to say. Prioritize information from established organizations like the World Health Organization, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, United Nations Children's Fund or peer-reviewed journals like The Lancet or Journal of the American Medical Association. If multiple reputable sources agree, the information is more likely to be reliable. Reliable fact-checking websites such as FactCheck.org and Snopes can also help root out fake information.
Evaluate the source's credibility. A quick way to assess a website's trustworthiness is to check its 'About Us' page. This section usually explains who is behind the content, their mission and their credentials. Also, search the name of the author. Do they have recognized expertise or affiliations with credible institutions? Reliable websites often have domains ending in .gov or .edu, indicating government or educational institutions. Finally, check the publication date. Information on the internet keeps circulating for years and may not be the most accurate or relevant in the present context.
If you're still unsure, don't share. If you're still uncertain about the accuracy of a claim, it's better to keep it to yourself. Forwarding unverified information can unintentionally contribute to the spread of misinformation and potentially cause harm, especially when it comes to health.
Questioning dubious claims and sharing only verified information not only protects against unsafe behaviors and panic, but it also helps curb the spread of fake health information. At a time when misinformation can spread faster than a virus, taking a moment to pause and fact-check can make a big difference.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Angshuman Kashyap is a doctoral candidate at the Department of Behavioral and Community Health, University of Maryland School of Public Health. Through its opinion section, Kansas Reflector works to amplify the voices of people who are affected by public policies or excluded from public debate. Find information, including how to submit your own commentary, here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Working Ohioans will lose health insurance under Medicaid work requirements
(Stock photo via Getty Images) If you know anyone who works in the service industry, you should be very familiar with the problem of hour volatility. When work hours aren't set, worker schedules can vary greatly from week to week and from month to month. This can make a steady stream of income difficult to achieve for service workers. It can also affect eligibility for public benefits. The Ohio Department of Medicaid is currently working with the federal government to implement work requirements for Ohio's 'Medicaid expansion' population–the 760,000 Ohio residents who receive health insurance through the Kasich Administration-era expansion of Medicaid. These work requirements would apply to households at 138% of the federal poverty level and below. Low-income households tend to be headed by people who work in the service industry. My colleague Michael Hartnett estimates that cooks and waiters are the second- and fifth-most common jobs among people in the bottom 20% of income in Ohio. A new analysis by Brookings Institution researchers looks at how the volatility of hours for service workers will impact eligibility for benefits like Medicaid and SNAP. One of the things they look at is the mental model that undergirds the current work requirement system. In 1976, only 26% of low-income employees worked in the service sector. By 2024, that number had risen to 38%. This means that 50 years ago, the contours of an unsteady sector had less of an impact on month-to-month hours than it does today. These researchers used data from the Survey of Income and Program Participation to estimate that 64% of service workers worked less than 80 hours in at least one month in 2022. A third (34%) of workers who work an average of 80 hours a month had at least one month that year that they worked less than 80 hours. That means that a monthly work requirement of 80 hours would have disqualified a third of service workers at some point during 2022 from benefits like Medicaid or SNAP. The researchers also find these volatile work hours are largely outside of the control of the workers. According to their analysis, three-quarters of service workers with irregular schedules say their schedules are at the request of their employers, not their own. This is also a high rate among non-service workers, where over 3 in 5 low-income workers with irregular schedules are conforming to employer requirements. So what does this mean? It means tens of thousands of low-income workers in Ohio could lose their health insurance because of work hour volatility out of their control. The labor market has changed a lot over the past fifty years, especially for low-income workers. This has led to less certainty about hours, which makes thresholds like monthly hours not as effective for gauging whether people are participating in the labor force. There are a lot of reasons to be worried about work requirements. The fact that working people will lose health insurance because lack of control over work hours is just another one to add to the list. SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
Medscape
2 hours ago
- Medscape
Continuing Metformin Reduces PCOS Pregnancy Risks
Continuing metformin throughout the first trimester in women with polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) showed the potential to reduce miscarriage risk (odds ratio [OR], 0.64) and increase clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.57) compared with placebo. A meta-analysis of 12 randomized controlled trials involving 1708 women suggested that stopping metformin at pregnancy confirmation might be less beneficial than continuation through the first trimester. METHODOLOGY: Researchers conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials evaluating metformin started preconception and continued at least until positive pregnancy test compared with placebo or no treatment in women with PCOS. The analysis included 12 trustworthy studies with 1708 participants, with trials conducted across 14 countries spanning five continents, all graded as low to moderate quality evidence. The primary outcome measure focused on miscarriage rate, defined as pregnancy loss prior to 20 completed weeks of gestation, while secondary outcomes included clinical pregnancy and live birth rates. Investigators performed indirect comparisons between treatment groups using the Bucher technique to evaluate clinical pregnancy, miscarriage, and live birth rates for metformin treatment continued throughout first trimester vs stopped at a positive pregnancy test. TAKEAWAY: Women receiving preconception metformin continued throughout the first trimester had higher clinical pregnancy rates (OR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.11-2.23), potential reduction in miscarriage (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.32-1.25), and possible increase in live birth (OR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.59-2.61) compared with placebo or no treatment. Participants who stopped metformin once pregnant showed an increased clinical pregnancy rate (OR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.01-1.80) but suggested higher miscarriage risk (OR, 1.46; 95% CI, 0.73-2.90) compared with placebo or no treatment. Indirect comparisons consistently favored continuing metformin through first trimester vs stopping at pregnancy confirmation for clinical pregnancy (OR, 1.16; 95% CI, 0.74-1.83), miscarriage (OR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.17-1.16), and live birth (OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.41-3.13). IN PRACTICE: 'Women with PCOS have been shown to have a fivefold increased risk per year of developing insulin resistance and subsequent type 2 diabetes. Insulin resistance has been shown to be independently associated with a higher risk of miscarriage. Metformin acts by decreasing gluconeogenesis, lipogenesis and enhancing glucose uptake, all of which in turn reduce insulin resistance,' wrote the authors of the study. SOURCE: The study was led by James Cheshire, PhD, Birmingham Women's and Children's NHS Foundation Trust in Birmingham, England. It was published online in American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology . LIMITATIONS: According to the authors, the main limitation was the inherent heterogeneous nature of the study population and the overall low quality of evidence. Women with PCOS have different phenotypes and varying degrees of hyperandrogenism and insulin resistance, which could not be accounted for in the analyses. Additionally, many studies did not subdivide pregnancy outcome data by body mass index (BMI), preventing meaningful analyses in BMI subgroups. The limited outcome data in spontaneously conceiving populations (only 30 women from two studies) make it difficult to extrapolate findings to this group. DISCLOSURES: The authors reported having no conflicts of interest. The study received no external funding.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Bookman: There's no way to cut $800 billion from Medicaid without hitting bone
Opinion writer Jay Bookman argues that Trump administration officials are being dishonest when they say cuts to Medicaid won't lead to people losing benefits. the_burtons/Getty Images After repeatedly promising on the campaign trail that he would never cut Medicaid benefits, Donald Trump is pushing a 'big, beautiful' spending bill that would slash Medicaid and other health care spending by $800 billion over the next decade. And if you still believe the administration, they're going to make those cuts without anyone losing benefits. As White House official Russell Vought put in last week, 'This bill will preserve and protect the programs, the social safety net, but it will make it much more common sense. No one will lose coverage as a result.' If your BS detector isn't ringing by now, you need to take it in for repair. Confronted with the absurdity of claiming that you can cut $800 billion without canceling health care coverage, Trump officials retreat to their fallback position. Yes, they admit, they'll be cutting benefits, but only for those who don't deserve it. 'Medicaid does not belong to people who are here illegally, and it does not belong to capable and able-bodied men who refuse to work,' another White House official told Politico. 'So no one is getting cut.' Once again, though, your BS detector ought to be blaring. Under existing federal law, undocumented immigrants are already barred from getting Medicaid. They're promising to cut benefits to people who are already not getting those benefits. So no savings there. And the truth is, most of the able-bodied men who are too lazy to work are also too lazy to worry about jumping through the hoops needed to get Medicaid health-care coverage. Such men do exist, no doubt, but in numbers far too small to generate $800 billion in savings. To get savings on that scale, you have to look elsewhere. And the truth is that millions of lower-income Americans, many of them working people, would be stripped of their health insurance if the bill becomes law. In Georgia alone, the projections are that as many as 200,000 people would lose coverage. And because Medicaid plays a larger health care role in rural communities, where the population is older and private sector jobs less likely to offer health insurance, the impact would be greater in those areas, putting additional financial strain on rural hospitals and health-care providers already struggling to stay open. (If Congress also refuses to extend subsidies for the Affordable Care Act later this year, as seems likely, the total number of Georgians who lose health insurance could top 700,000.) And no, the money saved by such measures would not be used to reduce the nation's deficit. It would instead be used to finance tax cuts, the overwhelming majority of which would benefit the wealthy. A big chunk of the projected savings, an estimated $280 billion, would come from instituting work requirements for Medicaid recipients. The model for that nationwide requirement is supposedly the Pathways program instituted here in Georgia in 2020 by Gov. Brian Kemp. By most measures, however, that program has proved a massive disappointment. According to the original projections by the Kemp administration, some 25,000 low-wage Georgians should have been enrolled in Medicaid through the program in its first year of operation. The actual number was 4,300. By the end of its second year of operation, which comes next month, total enrollment was projected to be almost 50,000. As of April 25, it was 7,400, according to reporting by ProPublica and The Current. The monthly reporting requirements, record-keeping and bureaucratic red tape proved so discouraging that many Georgia applicants gave up in frustration, choosing instead to take the risk that they would not need coverage. If it seems odd that such a program would be embraced as a model by the GOP, it might be a matter of perspective. It might be that your idea of a failure is somebody else's idea of a success, because the two of you have different goals in mind. In this case, if your goal is to provide at least a bare-bones health insurance plan to lower-income Americans, then Georgia's Pathways program has failed. However, if your goal is to discourage and obstruct as many Americans as possible from participating in that coverage, because you want to generate $800 billion in savings so the rich can get more tax cuts, then it starts to look a whole lot better. Those yachts aren't going to buy themselves. SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
