Blog by Esha Dhabuwala and Zoya Mir

Eight seconds. Two hundred and eighty characters. Ten pictures. That is all the time you have to capture the attention of the average social media user before they move on to the next piece of content. Advertisers are well aware of this and have been creative in their approach to market their products within these constraints.

Recently, there has been an influx of “medical influencers,” medical professionals making videos that provide their advice and recommendations for the general public. Doctors such as plastic surgeon Anthony Youn (@tonyyounmd) and dermatologist Dr. Muneeb Shah (@dermdoctor) have amassed millions of followers across social media platforms over the past few years. And for good reason—videos leading with “As a board-certified dermatologist” or “As a licensed physician” are enticing and immediately establish credibility with viewers.

But is this credibility justified? Upon closer inspection, many of the videos published by these doctors are labeled “Paid Partnership” or “Sponsored.” For example, Dr. Muneeb Shah frequently collaborates with skincare brands and gastroenterologist Dr. Austin Chiang (@austinchiangmd) partners with pharmaceutical companies to educate viewers about treatments. While these collaborations can provide valuable information, they can also blur the line between genuine medical advice and marketing.

The problem is further compounded by how users—primarily young adults—interact with this content. In the fast-paced world of social media, there is little time or incentive to fact-check. A study by the Stanford History Education Group found that 82% of students could not distinguish between news articles and sponsored content, underscoring how digital literacy remains a pressing issue. Yet even older social media users may find themselves persuaded when they should be skeptical. A study published in Science Advances found that users over sixty-five were seven times more likely to share articles from fake news domains compared to younger age groups. 

This susceptibility to misinformation across various age groups stems from a universal cognitive bias. There is something about seeing someone speak confidently into a camera, paired with a professional title, that tricks the brain into thinking they must know what they are talking about. However, with financial incentives at play, doctors may present information in a way that emphasizes benefits and downplays potential side-effects. While this does not automatically mean the content is misleading or inaccurate, viewers should approach it critically.

To address this issue, in 2024 we surveyed professors of business, biology, and industrial engineering at Georgia Institute of Technology (Georgia Tech) on how to evaluate medical content on social media. ¹ Professors from these fields were specifically selected because they use diverse methods to analyze and evaluate information, from surveying to scientific data collection, which is important when discussing a topic like medical misinformation. Medical misinformation is a serious issue and all forms of medical content should be examined with discernment. Key principles in the professors’ rigorous approach to source evaluation could be applied to popular media and short form content that gives medical advice. 

The survey results displayed the following common themes among professors of different disciplines:

1. Be cognizant of sponsorship labels. The most common response includes paying attention to labels such as “Paid Partnership” or “Ad” on individual posts. Social media platforms began requiring these labels in response to increased enforcement from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in 2017. The FTC pushed for transparency to protect consumers from being misled by influencer marketing, since paid promotions often appeared indistinguishable from unsponsored content.
2. Be mindful of language choices in product promotions. Terms like “must-have” or “life-changing” are frequently used as persuasive marketing techniques aimed at generating excitement and urgency rather than offering well-balanced, evidence-based evaluations. These phrases appeal to emotions, leveraging psychological triggers or the allure of exclusivity to drive purchases. Research suggests that emotive language in advertising is designed to bypass critical thinking, potentially leading to impulse buys without sufficient consideration of a product’s efficacy.4
3. Be wary of one-size-fits-all advice. Medical recommendations on social media can seem appealing, but they often overlook individual medical histories and personal needs. While an anti-aging serum or fat-burning supplement might work for some, it can also have adverse effects on others. When in doubt, consumers should consult their primary care physician before trying out any product.

We later adapted the survey results into a framework for critically analyzing online content and tested it on undergraduates. Georgia Tech’s Undergraduate Research Ambassadors (URA), a student mentor group, applied our framework to their social media usage for over two weeks. A post-implementation survey revealed both progress and challenges: While students struggled to consistently apply the guidelines, those who actively recalled them became more aware of advertising patterns. One student noted “microtrends” or small, rapidly spreading trends focused on niche interests. Another student became more aware of “stealth ads,” where medical professionals subtly weave product recommendations into personal stories.

The results were a step in the right direction; students slowly adapted their content intake to filter potentially misleading advertisements. However, more action is needed. We aim to incorporate digital literacy lessons into introductory college courses within our campus by partnering with Georgia Tech’s Ivan Allen College of Liberal Arts. Eventually, we would like to expand these efforts to healthcare workers, educators, and a broader range of users. Future initiatives would involve creating online toolkits, partnering with social media platforms, and integrating media literacy into healthcare training. Working towards becoming digitally literate will not change the fundamental algorithms of social media sites, nor will it change the wording of medical influencers. But it can change how we interact and respond to this content, which is equally as impactful in our everyday lives.

Esha Dhabuwala and Zoya Mir are third-year Biology majors at the Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta, Georgia. They are passionate about medicine and health communication, with a focus on improving digital health literacy. Both plan to pursue careers in medicine with a commitment to advancing public health awareness and education.

¹This survey was conducted as part of a personal research project exploring medical misinformation on social media, with input from professors and peers at Georgia Tech. Two surveys were independently developed and conducted in August 2024, one with professors at the university and another with undergraduates.