By Skye Ferguson
In recent years, public satisfaction with healthcare systems has fallen across the world. In the UK, just 1 in 5 people in 2024 said they were satisfied with the way the NHS runs, down from 7 in 10 in 2010, with the sharpest falls occurring over the past few years since the COVID-19 pandemic. People report being unhappy about waiting times, too little spending by the government on the NHS, and there not being enough staff in the NHS. Americans have gone as far as to say that public trust in their physicians and hospitals has declined, from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% in January 2024. Though the reasons for this vary between countries, it seems that many worldwide have become frustrated with the overall delivery of healthcare. While not always fully distrusting their doctors, people are dissatisfied, and this can encourage them to look elsewhere for medical advice.
A growing alternative to professional guidance
Increasingly, people are turning to social media or online blogs for help they would otherwise get from a doctor. A survey of Americans found that 1 in 5 will turn to TikTok for advice before going to a physician, with the proportion even higher among participants in Generation Z. The appeal of this is obvious, with answers coming much more quickly through an online search than the long waiting period for an in-person appointment with a professional. Users will also often come across content addressing their queries which has been made by others facing the same health issue, which makes the advice relatable as well as easily accessible.
How confusion spreads
But this is where a problem with the increased use of the internet for health advice can arise. Social media algorithms usually tend to prioritise engagement over accuracy, meaning posts that provoke strong reactions or relate personally to the user are more likely to be recommended, even if they are misleading. Thus, users are incentivised to use buzzwords in order to attract engagement, such as promoting a “cure” for a condition that even medical professionals haven’t been able to cure. This is exacerbated by platforms such as TikTok or Instagram, allowing content to reach a wide audience rapidly; as a result, posts may not have time to be fact-checked before going viral. Oversimplified or inaccurate information can therefore travel further and faster than medically accurate advice.
This phenomenon extends across a wide range of topics, with discussion and conflicting views on anything from long-term conditions to nutritional information common online. New trending diets or exercise routines gain popularity quickly but can just as quickly be dismissed in favour of the newest idea. Different fads are constantly being promoted as the “best” way to stay healthy, but in reality what is best is not likely the same for everyone. Anywhere there is uncertainty around a health topic, there is room for the spread of misinformation or exaggerated truths, and the confusion of users in the face of so many contradictory “bests”. However, this does not mean that all health advice online is wrong or misleading. In fact, many creators with lived experience or genuine expertise can offer valuable insight and help others to find solutions to their problems. But without clearer boundaries, viewers may struggle to tell the difference between credible advice and speculation.
What can be done?
Improved platform regulation could help to combat the spread of health misinformation. TikTok took action during the pandemic to counter it in relation to COVID-19, and the app continues to display a ‘Learn about COVID-19’ link on related videos. Could this approach be extended to include a broader range of medical conditions, and across more social media platforms? Even a subtle measure, like making users aware of credible sources and removing misleading posts, can help to point people in the right direction towards the truth.
Another possible factor is education. Younger audiences in particular may find it difficult to distinguish misinformation from trustworthy advice, having grown up with technology at their fingertips and seeing it embedded into their schooling from an early age. This suggests a role for health authorities to do more to raise awareness for lesser-known conditions and guide people towards reliable medical information. Additionally, it might be beneficial to introduce programmes that teach people, young or otherwise, to question the accuracy of the content they see online before they trust it. These measures combined could work to ensure the public receive proper medical advice, without forcing them to ignore online perspectives completely.
However, it would be difficult to overlook the wider healthcare landscape. When patients face long waits for appointments or encounter conditions that are poorly understood even by professionals, they may naturally look elsewhere for help. As such, more investment in under-researched areas could reduce the space for misinformation to thrive in the first place. But addressing the reasons for the public’s dissatisfaction with healthcare more broadly, such as reducing wait times or hiring more staff, remains important. These improvements should help to reduce the need to turn elsewhere for advice and rebuild trust in professional care. Overall, finding the right balance between accessible online content and trusted in-person help will be key to helping people feel supported in managing their health and avoiding misinformation.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s own and may not reflect the opinions of The St Andrews Economist.
Image Courtesy of axios.com