Products & safety
Health misinformation and influencers: claim accuracy, uncertainty, credentials, incentives and communication evidence
On this page
Health misinformation is false information shared without an intention to mislead. Disinformation involves knowing deception or manipulation. The accuracy of a claim and the intent of the person sharing it are separate questions. A mistaken claim alone does not establish deliberate deception.[1]
Distinguish content, intention, uncertainty and promotion
| Category | Meaning | Interpretation boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Misinformation | False information shared without the intention to cause harm | A sharer can be mistaken rather than deliberately deceptive[2] |
| Disinformation | False information knowingly created or shared to cause harm | Intent requires evidence beyond an inaccurate statement[2] |
| Malinformation | Genuine information used to harm, including exposing private material | Truth does not remove privacy and context concerns[2] |
| Uncertain or emerging claim | The available evidence may be incomplete or changing | Communicate knowns, unknowns and when information is updated[1] |
| Credential or experience | Information about the author’s expertise or perspective | Ask who prepared or reviewed the specific content[3] |
| Commercial connection | Payment, employment, gifts or another material relationship | Disclosure and scientific support answer different questions[4] |
Separate who created a claim from who repeated it
The Council of Europe-commissioned report distinguishes creators, producers and distributors of information. A person forwarding a post need not share the original creator’s knowledge or intention. Its categories describe information disorder rather than supplying a test that diagnoses someone’s character. Context can also change meaning: genuine private information can be used harmfully. The report is a conceptual framework, with authors’ views distinguished from official Council policy. Checking accuracy should remain separate from an unsupported accusation about motive.[2]
Check authorship and relevant expertise, then examine the evidence
NIH ODS recommends identifying who operates and funds a site, who prepared or reviewed its information, and the sources and date of its health claims. Expertise should be relevant to the topic. A person’s account of living with a condition can describe experience without establishing a general treatment effect. Look for references that support the claim rather than only an authoritative name. Commercial sites can provide accurate information, but their purpose and promotion deserve scrutiny. Privacy policies matter before sharing health details.[3]
Make commercial connections visible without treating them as proof of error
The US FTC’s influencer guidance covers material connections such as payment, employment, personal relationships and free or discounted products. It recommends disclosures close to endorsements, hard to miss and understandable in the communication’s language. A disclosure hidden in a profile or after a long list of tags can be inadequate. Platform disclosure tools do not automatically settle the question. This is US advertising guidance with a defined consumer-protection scope. A declared relationship identifies a reason to examine incentives; it neither proves nor disproves the claim.[4]
Match the promoted benefit to the study that could support it
FTC health-product guidance distinguishes objective claims from unsupported impressions created by advertising. Consider the studied product, formulation, population, comparison and outcome. A laboratory finding does not automatically establish a clinical benefit in people, and evidence about a different preparation may not substantiate the advertised product. An advertisement’s images and wording can imply certainty beyond its small-print qualification. The guidance also calls for attention to contrary findings and limitations. It is a US staff guidance document, not a universal legal determination about any particular post.[5]
Evidence & uncertainty
A health advertisement needs evidence for the actual expressed or implied benefit. FTC guidance treats the whole impression of an advertisement as relevant. A testimonial, impressive credential or sponsorship disclosure does not substitute for scientific substantiation of that benefit.[5]
Selected-source overview · Independent review pendingPublished questions
Does a false claim prove deliberate deception?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. WHO distinguishes inaccurate information shared without deceptive intent from disinformation. Establishing what someone knew or intended requires evidence beyond the claim’s inaccuracy.[1]
Evidence behind this answer
- Disinformation and public health
original official guidance · 2024
Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal · 2024-02-06; Q&A; intent, public-health communication, knowns/unknowns and source checking
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Can true information still be used harmfully?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
Yes. The information-disorder framework includes genuine information used to harm, including private information moved into public view. Accuracy and privacy are different questions.[2]
Evidence behind this answer
- Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making, second revised edition
original commissioned conceptual report · 2018
Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal · 2018-08; Second revised edition; conceptual definitions, agents and privacy/context distinctions
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Does a credential establish that a particular health claim is reliable?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. ODS recommends checking authorship, relevant preparation or review, references, date, ownership and purpose. The evidence supporting the specific claim still needs examination.[3]
Evidence behind this answer
- How To Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers
original official guidance · Date not stated
Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal · Reviewed 2022-05-04; Review date; ownership, expertise, evidence, date, commercial purpose and privacy
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Does an advertising disclosure establish that the product works?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. Disclosure makes a material connection visible. FTC guidance separately requires truthful endorsements; describing a connection is not scientific evidence of effectiveness.[4]
Evidence behind this answer
- Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers
original official guidance · 2019
Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal · 2019-11; Original staff brochure; material connections, placement and endorsement truthfulness
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Can evidence for one preparation support every similar product?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
Not automatically. FTC guidance examines whether the evidence matches the advertised formulation, population and claimed benefit, including limitations and the advertisement’s overall impression.[5]
Evidence behind this answer
- Health Products Compliance Guidance
original official guidance · 2022
Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal · 2022-12; Original staff guidance; substantiation, net impression, formulation and contrary evidence
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Does sharing a headline necessarily mean believing it?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. The accuracy-attention experiments found differences between accuracy judgments and sharing intentions. Their results concern selected news-sharing settings, not a diagnosis of individual motives.[6]
Evidence behind this answer
- Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online
original randomized and field experiments · 2021
Original indexed abstract or result passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; direct original opening was incomplete or blocked; full study not independently appraised · 2021-03-17; Original abstract; four survey experiments and a Twitter field experiment; April journal issue
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Did the children’s influencer trial find equal effects for healthy and unhealthy snacks?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. Unhealthy-snack promotion increased immediate intake; healthy-snack promotion had no significant intake effect. The experiment did not measure long-term weight or dietary change.[7]
Evidence behind this answer
- Social Media Influencer Marketing and Children’s Food Intake: A Randomized Trial
original randomized food marketing trial · 2019
Original indexed abstract or result passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; direct original opening was incomplete or blocked; full study not independently appraised · 2019-03-04; Original indexed abstract; 176 children, immediate intake and healthy-promotion null; April issue
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Will correcting a misconception necessarily change a health intention?
Selected-source overview · Independent review pending. Read the evidence context.
No. The parent experiment reported in 2014 improved a targeted belief without increasing vaccination intention. That specific historical result does not mean every correction fails or causes harm.[8]
Evidence behind this answer
- Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
original randomized communication trial · 2014
Original bibliographic record and abstract inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; full study not independently appraised · 2014-03-03; Online publication; original abstract methods, beliefs, intention outcomes and limits; April issue
This answer summarizes selected sources. An independent appraisal of the complete evidence has not been completed.
Attention to accuracy can affect sharing in selected settings
Pennycook and colleagues reported four survey experiments and a Twitter field experiment in 2021. Directing attention toward accuracy improved the quality of news people shared. Participants’ accuracy judgments and sharing intentions were not identical, suggesting that sharing a headline does not necessarily mean believing it. These experiments concern particular news contexts and online samples. They do not establish a guaranteed effect on every platform, health decision or audience, or measure improved clinical outcomes. Pausing to consider accuracy has experimental support without becoming a complete misinformation-prevention system.[6]
Influencer marketing can change immediate behavior, with important nulls
Coates and colleagues randomized 176 children aged nine to eleven to mock Instagram profiles showing popular video creators promoting unhealthy snacks, healthy snacks or nonfood products. Unhealthy-snack promotion increased immediate overall and unhealthy-snack intake compared with nonfood promotion. Healthy-snack promotion did not significantly change intake. This short experiment measured eating during a controlled encounter, rather than long-term diet, weight or the reliability of all influencers. The asymmetric result cautions against assuming that every promotion has the same effect simply because a creator is popular.[7]
Correcting a belief does not necessarily change a future intention
Nyhan and colleagues’ 2014 report described a web experiment conducted in 2011, testing four vaccine messages among 1,759 US parents. None increased intention to vaccinate a future child. A corrective explanation reduced the targeted misperception, while the authors reported reduced intention among parents with the least favourable baseline attitudes. Other tested formats also had unintended belief effects. Outcomes were reported beliefs and intentions, not verified vaccination. This historical experiment does not establish that corrections generally backfire, or that accurate information should be withheld. Its specific messages, audience and setting limit generalization.[8]
Changing evidence should be communicated with its uncertainty
WHO recommends making clear what is known, what is unknown and when information will be updated. A new study can alter confidence without making an earlier carefully qualified statement dishonest. Conversely, an old post can become misleading when its date, population or limitations disappear. Checking the original source, author and current evidence helps distinguish an evolving question from a confidently unsupported claim. Emotional pressure to share immediately is a reason to pause, not evidence that either the audience or communicator has a particular motive.[1]
References
- Disinformation and public health
Original official guidance
WHO · Content/publication date: 2024
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal
Cited sections: 2024-02-06; Q&A; intent, public-health communication, knowns/unknowns and source checking - Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making, second revised edition
Original commissioned conceptual report
Wardle and Derakhshan / Council of Europe · Content/publication date: 2018
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal
Cited sections: 2018-08; Second revised edition; conceptual definitions, agents and privacy/context distinctionsPublication edition verified in turn2300view2; definitions in turn2300view3. Authors’ opinions are not stated as official Council policy. The 2017 original and 2018 edition are not given separate source allowances.
- How To Evaluate Health Information on the Internet: Questions and Answers
Original official guidance
NIH Office of Dietary Supplements · Content/publication date: not stated
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal
Cited sections: Reviewed 2022-05-04; Review date; ownership, expertise, evidence, date, commercial purpose and privacyReview date is not a claimed original publication date. Domain suffix alone is not used as a reliability test.
- Disclosures 101 for Social Media Influencers
Original official guidance
US Federal Trade Commission · Content/publication date: 2019
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal
Cited sections: 2019-11; Original staff brochure; material connections, placement and endorsement truthfulnessCurrent original guidance inspected; US scope retained. Web and PDF brochure constitute one work.
- Health Products Compliance Guidance
Original official guidance
US Federal Trade Commission · Content/publication date: 2022
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Selected substantive original official or professional-policy passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; not an independent clinical or legal appraisal
Cited sections: 2022-12; Original staff guidance; substantiation, net impression, formulation and contrary evidenceStaff guidance; no independent force of law or safe harbor.
- Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online
Original randomized and field experiments
Pennycook and colleagues / Nature · Content/publication date: 2021
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Original indexed abstract or result passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; direct original opening was incomplete or blocked; full study not independently appraised
Cited sections: 2021-03-17; Original abstract; four survey experiments and a Twitter field experiment; April journal issueOriginal abstract was also retrieved in turn2304view2. Later PubMed openings in turn2316view3 and turn2320view2 returned only footer content; publisher turn2286view0 was blocked. No full-text appraisal or health-outcome effect claimed.
- Social Media Influencer Marketing and Children’s Food Intake: A Randomized Trial
Original randomized food marketing trial
Coates and colleagues / Pediatrics · Content/publication date: 2019
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Original indexed abstract or result passages inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; direct original opening was incomplete or blocked; full study not independently appraised
Cited sections: 2019-03-04; Original indexed abstract; 176 children, immediate intake and healthy-promotion null; April issueDirect PubMed retrieval turn2286view2 was incomplete. No longitudinal weight effect inferred.
- Effective messages in vaccine promotion: a randomized trial
Original randomized communication trial
Nyhan and colleagues / Pediatrics · Content/publication date: 2014
Accessed: 2026-10-14 UTC · Original bibliographic record and abstract inspected on 2026-10-14 UTC; full study not independently appraised
Cited sections: 2014-03-03; Online publication; original abstract methods, beliefs, intention outcomes and limits; April issueData collected June–July 2011, distinct from 2014 publication; verified in turn2344view0/1. Original publisher abstract also retrieved in turn2320view1. No full-text review or actual uptake measurement claimed; the trial does not establish a universal backfire effect.
Scope & review
- Population
- Readers encountering online health claims; the food-marketing trial specifically studied children.
- Exposure or intervention
- Claim accuracy, intent, expertise, commercial connections and communication strategies.
- Comparison
- Original evidence versus promotional presentation; source-specific randomized comparison groups.
- Outcomes
- Beliefs, intentions, sharing quality and immediate food intake are distinct outcomes.
- Timeframe
- Dated experiments and current inspected guidance; no comprehensive surveillance or current clinical eligibility determination.
- Jurisdiction
- US FTC scope is identified; international conceptual and WHO frameworks are not universal advertising laws.
Selected-source educational explanation. Official guidance, original study findings and editorial interpretation are distinguished. No exhaustive search, independent systematic synthesis or qualified medical review has been completed.
Sources checked on their individual access dates. Selected sources were checked; ongoing surveillance and qualified review have separate statuses on the coverage page.
Revision history
- 2026-10-14 UTC: Added sourced definitions, primary evidence, current policy scope and update-status interpretation; qualified expert review remains pending.
What this article still leaves open
- Which communication approaches improve verified health behavior across different audiences without widening access barriers?
- How well do brief accuracy prompts and transparent disclosures work across present-day platforms and repeated exposure?
Suggest a correction
Submit a content correction to the editorial queue, or download a local note. Leave out personal medical details. Submitted text is stored privately with a browser receipt session and is visible to this browser and the editor. Clearing cookies removes access to your submission history. This is not an account or a medical service.
Your submitted corrections for this article
Explore the topic map
Browse the health domains connected to this article. The map also identifies topics whose articles remain unwritten.