Early-career clinicians are entering medicine at a time when social media is not an optional extra, but a core part of how information is shared, consumed and trusted. While some senior colleagues may still view social media as a recreational space, younger professionals are more likely to recognise its role in education and public health messaging. As a result, early-career clinicians are uniquely positioned, and arguably uniquely responsible, for shaping how medicine is represented online.
When I first began using social media professionally, I saw it as a way to share dermatological information with a wider audience. Over time, I realised how powerful it had become. For many patients, it is now their primary source of medical advice, shaping what they believe and how they behave.
In the UK, the General Medical Council (GMC) advises doctors to protect patient confidentiality, share accurate evidence-based information, and remember that online content is public and permanent (1). The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) adds requirements around accuracy, transparency and avoiding exploitation (2). These are sound principles, but passive rather than practical. The ASA prohibits claims that non-medical devices can treat medical conditions, yet red light therapy masks are routinely promoted as acne treatments by doctors online, and before and after images of prescription-only treatments are widespread. This is not a failure of values, but of enforcement.
The medium is inherently global. Only half of my own followers are based in the UK, meaning content created under GMC and ASA expectations is consumed by audiences subject to entirely different rules. Australia operates some of the strictest social media guidance for doctors globally, prohibiting patient testimonials, aspirational imagery and brand endorsements, yet non-medical influencers face no equivalent restriction (3). A sunscreen endorsement prohibited for an Australian doctor is freely available to a lifestyle creator with twice the following. This asymmetry is confusing for doctors and patients alike.
Regulatory inconsistency is one problem; the nature of influence itself is another. The answer is not to demonise influencers. Doctors are themselves powerful influencers, and the distinction between medical and non-medical matters more than any blanket suspicion of the medium. However, the way influence operates online creates real risks. Non-medical influencers lead with stories, not statistics; they speak with certainty rather than nuance. Repeated exposure across platforms makes claims feel convincing regardless of evidence. When someone has followed a creator for months, the trust that builds is emotional in a way that clinical authority struggles to match (4). The doctor who says “it depends” cannot compete with the influencer who says “this changed my life.”
Financial incentives complicate matters further. Many medical influencers earn substantial income through brand partnerships, sometimes inadvertently spreading misinformation. More troubling is specialty drift: titles such as “dermatology GP” or “skin doctor”, used without recognised training, are invisible to patients but quietly erode professional standards. I once thought misinformation from non-clinicians was the greatest threat. I now believe doctors speaking outside their expertise may be more damaging; their professional identity lends unearned authority to questionable claims.
The emotional cost of online advocacy is easy to underestimate. Derogatory comments, accusations of hidden motives and hostility towards evidence-based information are not isolated incidents; they are an ongoing feature of the landscape, only ever a notification away. I have received threats of referral to the GMC simply for stating that UV exposure is associated with skin cancer.
Between 2017 and 2024, approximately 190,000 referrals were made to healthcare professional regulators. Around 3% related to social media conduct, and of those, only 2.6% progressed to a fitness to practise hearing, (5). The bar for formal sanction is high, yet referral itself carries real consequences: anxiety, suicide risk and defensive practice. The chilling effect extends far beyond those formally investigated. Many colleagues choose not to engage at all. Within medicine itself, posting online is often read as self-promotion, a perception that is sometimes fair, but it risks obscuring the broader purpose of reaching patients where they already are. This perception may in part reflect a generational gap in how social media is understood, rather than the intent behind its use.
The regulatory model has no middle ground. Enforcement is rare and severe. Self-policing fills some of the gap but is inconsistent and often biased against those with less power; a junior doctor is unlikely to publicly challenge a senior colleague’s inaccurate post. Early career clinicians have a particular role here. Not because they should carry the burden of regulation, but because they are often the most fluent in the language of these platforms. Understanding how content is created, shared and amplified is now a core professional skill. Supporting colleagues who engage responsibly, and recognising the value of this work, will be critical in shaping a safer and more effective digital landscape.
The gap between evidence and influence also reshapes the clinical encounter. Most patients now arrive having already been influenced by social media. Rather than simply correcting, we should listen first, validate their experience, explain how medical evidence works and what it cannot tell us, and reach a plan that reflects both their goals and the evidence.
The question is no longer whether doctors should engage with social media, but whether we can afford not to. National guidance alone is not enough. Social media is global, and so must be our ethical response: a shared international framework that levels the playing field between medical and non-medical influencers, protects patients from unearned authority, and ensures that where a doctor posts has no bearing on the standards they are held to. In a borderless digital world, fragmented rules protect no one.
References
- General Medical Council. Using social media as a medical professional [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2026 Apr 4]. Available from: https://www.gmc-uk.org/cdn/documents/using-social-media-as-a-medical-professional-final-version_pdf-105395775.pdf
- Advertising Standards Authority | Committee of Advertising. Healthcare: Overview [Internet]. 2022 [cited 2026 Apr 4]. Available from: https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/healthcare-overview.html
- Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency – Social media: How to meet your obligations under the National Law [Internet]. [cited 2026 Apr 4]. Available from: https://www.ahpra.gov.au/Resources/Social-media-guidance.aspx
- Pfender E, Bleakley A. An Elicitation Study to Understand Young Adults’ Beliefs About Seeking Health Information From Social Media Influencers. Qual Health Res. 2024 Feb 1;34(3):205–16. doi:10.1177/10497323231208391
- Edwards S, Finn G, Guckian J. Erase or Be Erased. Social Media Referrals to Healthcare Regulators in the United Kingdom 2017 to 2024. Health Policy Technol. 2026;101178.
Author
Amy Perkins
Dr Amy Perkins is a Consultant Dermatologist. Alongside clinical work, she is involved in undergraduate and postgraduate education and serves as an Honorary Clinical Lecturer at the University of Glasgow. She sits on the Board of Examiners for the Royal College of Physicians, contributing to the development, assessment and cybersecurity of postgraduate medical examinations.
Dr Perkins works with the Scottish Government exploring future regulatory approaches to sunbed use in Scotland, and has been involved in major changes to sunbed advertising. She frequently contributes to national and international media on skin health and the impact of health misinformation online.
She is completing an MSc in Skin Ageing and Aesthetic Medicine at the University of Manchester, with a focus on ethical integration of social media into undergraduate medical curricula.
Her work sits at the intersection of dermatology, technology and innovation. She has collaborated with OpenAI on the development and evaluation of large language models, with a strong interest in the ethical integration of artificial intelligence into healthcare.
Declarations of Interest
Collaborations with Cantabria Labs, Avène, Uriage, Cult Essentials
Advisory boards: DIC Sunscreen, Beame SPF
Equity and advisory role with BrightMed
Honoraria and conference support from L’Oréal, AbbVie, Novartis, Lilly, Johnson & Johnson, Almirall
Paid media contributions (TV, radio, print)
Aspiring Leaders in Healthcare
Aspiring Leaders in Healthcare Network aims to foster a multi-professional community of practice, united by the common goal of nurturing future healthcare leaders across the globe. Our regular online meetings, social media communities and conference huddles connect members to a wider network passionate about leading positive change and improvement in healthcare.
In this blog series, we showcase our members’ diverse experience of leading with impact at the earliest stages of their careers to empower and inspire the BMJ Leader Blog readership.