Reflecting on the Challenges of Tackling Health Misinformation
Posted on: Thursday 30 July 2026
For me, tackling health misinformation is essential to building public trust in pharmaceutical medicine. The erosion of trust has detrimentally impacted the health of so many, whether that be encouraging poor vaccine uptake, the advent of unsafe medical treatments, or fear of taking appropriate treatments at all. We, as a profession, all have a role to play in educating the public on medicine safety and tackling health misinformation. It is a mission I am passionate about and is one of FPM’s policy priorities. That is why I have presented at numerous conferences and events and FPM co-hosted with the Faculty of Public Health two webinars this Spring, on what misinformation is, and how we can tackle it.
I should start by addressing what I mean by misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, missing information, and the infodemic, they are all different.
Whilst others’ definitions may slightly vary, these are the working definitions that I use, based on those from organisations such as the WHO:
- misinformation is where false information is shared without intent to mislead
- disinformation is where false information is shared with the intent to deceive
- malinformation is where truthful information is twisted (or taken out of context) to maliciously mislead
- missing information is where there are information gaps that leave people without what they need to understand their issue. The gap may be a result of information not being there in the first place or as result of bias leading to the information being inaccessible
- infodemic is where too much information is provided (including false or misleading information), which obscures and buries the key true information that is needed, such as during a disease outbreak.
I will be using the general term ‘misinformation’ moving forward in this piece, unless stated otherwise.
Misinformation is a major public-health risk, the World Health Organisation identifies health misinformation and disinformation as a major threat to global health [1], the European Commission sees health information manipulation as a risk to personal and societal health and global progress [2], and the World Economic Forum ranks misinformation and disinformation as the number two short- to medium-term global risk [3]. What we are seeing on the ground is dire, in the UK, half of adults struggle to access trusted health information, and 1 in 10 adults report being affected by misinformation, rising to 1 in 5 among ethnic minorities [4]. This proliferation has real world effects.
The communication challenges that the pharmaceutical industry faces in addressing misinformation
When I presented at the Ethos Annual Charity Symposium earlier this year, I addressed what role the pharmaceutical industry plays in this misinformation environment. It’s worth repeating the high-level themes of that, here.
Historically, pharmaceutical information followed a relatively controlled pathway, moving from pharmaceutical companies to doctors and then to patients. This process was largely supported through promotional activities and clinical congresses, resulting in prescribing decisions being made by doctors leading to patients being given medicines to take. However, the current information environment is substantially different with more empowerment of patients and a wider range of health professionals involved. Both patients and health professionals now are trying to engage in a joint informed decision-making process within a fast-moving, attention-driven ecosystem in which information is readily available from a wide range of sources, many of which can compete with or replace traditional pharmaceutical communications.
The pharmaceutical industry’s existing communication model is constrained by a combination of regulatory requirements, established traditions, organisational choices, and a predominantly reactive approach to engagement with patients. As a result, there is a growing mismatch between legacy communication practices and the realities of today’s information landscape.
As I see it, there are five key factors that should be considered when addressing gaps in health information provision: timing, accuracy, compelling communication, accessibility, and trustworthiness of the source. Together, these factors determine the effectiveness of health information in supporting informed decision-making.
There are areas where the industry excels, one of those is in providing accurate information. This strength is evident across scientific and promotional materials, patient information resources, and public-facing information that is subject to rigorous review and regulatory requirements.
However, there are also industry weaknesses in other areas. Timely communication is essential to reducing the impact of misinformation and ensuring that accurate information reaches its intended audience when it is most needed. This remains a challenge, particularly when addressing the information needs of patients and the wider public. The industry is also less effective in delivering compelling and engaging communications, especially for non-professional audiences. Accessibility is another area of concern, as information often remains concentrated within traditional professional channels.
There are barriers that discourage more innovative sharing of information by pharmaceutical companies. Clearly companies must stay within the regulations and Codes of practice. However, these are often used as reasons to rely on established ways of working rather than innovate. There are also beliefs around not engaging proactively such as “if we do nothing, we are safe.” Other barriers include perceptions that addressing misinformation is not a business priority, a tendency to respond only when issues become visible, concerns about restrictions on communicating with the public, and a focus on engaging only with selected groups of physicians. These attitudes may contribute to organisational inertia, limiting the industry’s ability to adapt its communication strategies to the demands of the modern information environment. This needs to change.
The central information challenge for the pharmaceutical industry is ensuring that the right information about the right medicine reaches the right physician and patient at the right time, and in a format that is effective within today’s complex information environment. Achieving this requires communication approaches that are both accurate and responsive to changing information consumption behaviours.
Several ongoing initiatives and organisations are contributing to this agenda, including the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Medicine, the Patient Information Forum, the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), the Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority (PMCPA), and the Undoctored Truth Alliance.
Practical steps both companies and physicians can make in tackling misinformation
Whilst tackling misinformation may seem daunting, there are practical things pharmaceutical physicians can do, starting with becoming familiar with this field and resources available such as the RESIST 2 toolkit [5]. Many of these I addressed when co-hosting the misinformation workshop at the Camino Adventures in Pharma conference earlier this year and were covered in the second FPM/FPM misinformation webinar.
1. Building trust before misinformation spreads
Building trust is a fundamental component of preventing the spread and impact of misinformation. Pharmaceutical physicians should encourage their organisations to communicate openly, transparently, and consistently with their audiences to establish credibility and confidence.
Developing strong relationships with patient organisations, healthcare professionals, and communities can help create trusted channels through which accurate information can be shared. In addition, actively involving patients and members of the public in the development of health communications can improve relevance, engagement, and trust in the information provided.
Pharmaceutical Physicians should ensure that patients can easily find and understand evidence-based information.
2. Detecting misinformation early
Early identification of misinformation is critical to limiting its reach and potential harm. Organisations should monitor social media platforms, online forums, and news channels to identify emerging misinformation trends and have policies in place to determine if, when and how to respond. Surveillance systems and artificial intelligence technologies may also be used to detect patterns of misinformation and identify emerging narratives. Establishing formal early-warning systems can help organisations respond proactively before harmful messages become widely disseminated.
Pharmaceutical physicians can help organisations to develop this capability. Pharmaceutical physicians should also ensure they know their own responsibilities within the policies.
3. Using pre-bunking approaches
Providing early information on topics that are particularly vulnerable to misinformation can further strengthen resilience and reduce the likelihood that false narratives will gain traction. Pharmaceutical physicians should familiarise themselves with the evidence on where pre-bunking works and best practices.
4. Debunking misinformation effectively
When misinformation has already spread, the sharing of corrective communication, or “de-bunking” should follow evidence-based principles. Pharmaceutical physicians should make sure they understand best practice for debunking within that particular field and context. One example of debunking may be to state a fact, warn that there is false information, give a clear explanation of why the false information is incorrect and what evidence contradicts it and then conclude by reinforcing the correct information to ensure that accurate messages remain prominent.
5. Using trusted messengers
The credibility of a message is often influenced by the credibility of the messenger delivering it. Health information should therefore be communicated through trusted and respected sources, including healthcare professionals. Highlighting the reliability and expertise of information sources can help strengthen public confidence in health messages.
6. Using artificial intelligence responsibly
Artificial intelligence has the potential to support efforts to combat health misinformation at scale. AI tools can assist in monitoring large volumes of online content, identifying emerging themes and public concerns, and detecting misinformation trends. They can also be used to generate targeted pre-bunking messages, simplify complex health guidance, and translate verified information into multiple languages. In addition, AI may support the personalisation of information to meet the needs of different audiences. However, AI is used, attention should be given to ensure it is being used ethically and is the right AI for that particular use and context.
7. Making accurate information easier to find
Ensuring that accurate health information is easily accessible is an important component of misinformation management. Pharmaceutical Physicians should work with their organisations to improve website design, navigation, and signposting to help users locate relevant information quickly. Information should be presented in clear, concise, and accessible language that is appropriate for the target audience. A range of communication channels should be utilised to maximise reach, and information should be tailored to accommodate different literacy levels, cultural contexts, and language requirements.
Tackling misinformation is not an optional extra for our medical specialty, it is central to protecting public health and rebuilding public trust. The spread of misinformation, disinformation, malinformation, missing information and infodemics has shown us that information must be timely, accessible, understandable, compelling and delivered by trusted voices. If it is not, people may be left vulnerable to confusion, fear, harmful choices or the rejection of effective treatments.
The pharmaceutical industry and pharmaceutical physicians are already part of the health information ecosystem, whether we choose to acknowledge that role or not. Our responsibilities therefore extend beyond generating robust evidence and ensuring regulatory compliance. We must also consider how information is communicated, who it reaches, who it fails to reach, and what harm may arise when credible information is absent, inaccessible or released too slowly.
There are practical steps we can take. We can build trust before misinformation spreads, listen to communities, improve health literacy, make reliable information easier to find, support early detection, work with trusted messengers, and coordinate more effectively across organisations. None of these actions alone will solve the problem, but together they can create a stronger, more resilient information environment.
Ultimately, tackling health misinformation requires leadership, courage and collaboration. As pharmaceutical physicians, we have a duty to bring scientific rigour, ethical judgement and patient-centred communication to this challenge. By acting earlier, communicating better and working together, we can help ensure that people have the information they need to make informed decisions about their health. In doing so, we will strengthen the public trust in pharmaceutical medicine.
I am proud of the work that FPM has done so far in tackling this important issue and am looking forward to contributing to the future work that FPM has planned in this area.
Thank you to John-Paul Mattar (Policy and Public Affairs Manager, FPM) for his support with developing the presentations mentioned above and this blog.