{"id":9935,"date":"2021-11-25T07:00:56","date_gmt":"2021-11-25T06:00:56","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bjsm\/?p=9935"},"modified":"2021-11-19T08:41:46","modified_gmt":"2021-11-19T07:41:46","slug":"7-questions-to-identify-health-misinformation-in-digital-and-social-media-and-how-does-it-start","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.bmj.com\/bjsm\/2021\/11\/25\/7-questions-to-identify-health-misinformation-in-digital-and-social-media-and-how-does-it-start\/","title":{"rendered":"7 questions to identify health misinformation in digital and social media. And how does it start?"},"content":{"rendered":"

A blog taken from the La Trobe Sport and Exercise Medicine Research Centre blog site<\/a><\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Our <\/span>health information needs and preferences vary greatly. We are increasingly turning to digital and social media for health information. These sources are easily accessible and often engaging, even when they contain the wrong information. It is common to use \u2018Dr Google\u2019 to source digital and social media health information before consulting a health professional. But, if \u2018Dr Google\u2019 is wrong, we can be quickly set on the wrong path. This is because by nature, we don\u2019t question new health information if it appears credible, confirms our existing beliefs or provides us information we want to believe. Once we adopt a belief, we typically reject conflicting information and accept further confirmatory information. This innate <\/span>behaviour drives the acceptance of health misinformation.<\/p>\n

\"\"
Photo by Mediamodifier<\/a> on Unsplash<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

7 Questions to help identify health misinformation<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Is a<\/span>\u00a0wonder cure or treatment being promoted that sounds too easy, or too good to be true?<\/em> If <\/span>so, it probably is \u2013 dig deeper, no matter how much you want to believe the claims.<\/li>\n
  2. Is the health information being provided by a credible source?<\/em> Are claims supported by a <\/span>professional body (e.g. Australian Medical Association), University, or not-for-profit organisation. If not, dig deeper.<\/li>\n
  3. Is the health information coming from a credible and unbiased expert in the field?<\/em> Check the <\/span>credentials of any proposed expert. Are they really an expert on the topic in question? \u2013 have they completed research in this area? It is common for so called experts to either give themselves this title or speak on areas outside their expertise. If they are not really an expert, dig deeper.<\/li>\n
  4. Does the expert providing information have a conflict of interest?<\/em> For example, if someone who <\/span>claims a treatment or change in behaviour is needed also has a financial interest in people adopting the treatment or change in behaviour, dig deeper.<\/li>\n
  5. How strong is the evidence to support the claim(s) being made?<\/em> Not all research studies are <\/span>created equal. Firstly, ensure the research being used to support a claim comes from a peer reviewed journal. If the claim is based on multiple high quality randomised controlled trials and fi<\/span>ltered by a systematic review then it should be believable. If it is based on only one high quality randomised controlled trial, it may be believable. But, in some cases future studies fail to replicate results so don\u2019t be 100% confid<\/span>ent. If information provided is based on other forms of research, dig deeper.<\/li>\n
  6. Is the information based on anecdote or individual cases?<\/em> Using this approach as supporting evidence for a new treatment is common. However, it is open to bias and should be met with strong scepticism. Those promoting the new treatment are unlikely to provide information on unsuccessful cases. Importantly, there are many cases in research of successful cases being used to promote a medical treatment (e.g. key-hole surgery for arthritis), only to later fi<\/span>nd out that the treatment is no better than a control or placebo.<\/li>\n
  7. Is the new research refl<\/span>ective of correlation or causation?<\/em> A lack of understanding of the difference between correlation and causation in research fin<\/span>dings (even among some researchers) is a common driver of health misinformation. Just because two things are related, does not mean one causes the other. For example, if a person taking a certain vitamin supplement has better health than someone who does not take the supplement, it does not mean the supplement is the reason they are healthier. A person taking vitamin supplements is likely to pay more attention to their health generally, meaning the cause of better health may instead be eating better, exercising more or not smoking. This scenario is rife within the vitamins and supplements industry, with products promoted based on poor evidence later found not to be benefi<\/span>cial when tested in adequately controlled trials<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Acceptance of misinformation can be defi<\/span>ned as \u201ccases in which people\u2019s beliefs about factual matters are not supported by clear evidence\u201d. Our growing use of digital and social media means the spread of health misinformation is now more prevalent and rapid than ever. Examples of health misinformation include the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine-autism myth; countless other vaccine myths; nutrition myths; exercise and osteoarthritis; and kids and strength training. This list could go on and on.<\/p>\n

    Exposure to health misinformation infl<\/span>uences our care seeking behaviour and discussions with health and medical professionals. Acceptance of health misinformation may cause us to form poor health behaviours, seek inappropriate healthcare, or make us highly resistant to a health professional providing recommendations contrary to our possibly misinformed beliefs. We are all prone to health misinformation, even health professionals and researchers.<\/p>\n

    How does health misinformation start and spread?<\/strong><\/p>\n

    Whether digital and social media health information is provided by a regulated source or not, there is no guarantee against misinformation. Producing accurate, and balanced health information requires the publisher to:<\/p>\n