Health advice is everywhere, from a relative’s miracle supplement recommendation to an influencer explaining why your doctor is wrong. The challenge isn’t just separating factual information from falsehoods, but understanding why certain claims feel convincing, whom we trust, and how to make better decisions when the evidence gets complicated.
The encouraging news is that research is beginning to show how stronger media literacy, clearer communication, and trusted community relationships can help us navigate the noise without becoming suspicious of everything we read.
📊 Getting Better Poll
Share this post and invite others to share what informed their answer or shaped their perspective.
▶️ If you would like a wider lens on how fear and sensational stories shape public trust, check out our award-winning documentary “Trust Me”.
🗣️ The Doctor Is In, and So Is Everyone Else
In his September 2026 analysis, researcher Matthew Facciani examines global data from nearly 13,000 people across 13 countries, collected for the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer. About 70% of respondents accepted at least one of six deliberately divisive health claims, including claims about raw milk, childhood vaccination, and acetaminophen during pregnancy. The most common reported starting point for these beliefs was personal deliberation, cited by 43% of those who believed at least one claim. Information platforms followed at 35%, while credentialed experts were cited by 33%.
One important finding challenges the idea that misinformation spreads simply because people have stopped trusting doctors. Doctors remained influential even among respondents who accepted multiple disputed claims. What changed was the number of competing voices, including friends, online communities, and AI tools. The survey cannot establish why people hold these beliefs or prove that any one source caused them. But it suggests that correcting false claims requires more than broadcasting facts. Listening patiently, acknowledging genuine concerns, and building relationships within communities may help reliable information compete more effectively.
The Better Take:
When health advice conflicts, don’t assume that someone who disagrees is incapable of reasoning. Ask what shaped their view, then compare the claim with reliable medical evidence. Understanding why advice feels persuasive can make conversations more productive, preserve relationships, and help trustworthy information reach people who might otherwise tune it out.
🎙️ Can a Short Podcast Help People Make Better Health Decisions?
A 2026 randomized controlled trial published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance tested a practical idea: could a story-based podcast improve how parents evaluate health information? The researchers found that parents who listened to a critical health literacy podcast showed better critical thinking about health information than a control group. They also reported stronger intentions to use critical thinking and more evidence-informed treatment preferences. The study found statistically significant improvements, although the measured effects were small to moderate.
This is useful evidence because it moves the conversation beyond identifying misinformation as a problem and tests a possible response. A randomized trial provides stronger evidence of an intervention’s effects than a survey asking people what they believe, although it cannot establish that the same approach will work equally well for everyone or produce lasting changes in real-world health outcomes. Still, the results suggest that learning to question claims need not involve expensive courses or hours of fact-checking. Accessible, story-driven education may offer a practical way to strengthen health judgment at scale, provided its effectiveness continues to hold up in further research.
The Better Take:
Better judgment can be learned, and it doesn’t have to feel like homework. Short, engaging educational tools may help build habits that make health claims easier to assess. The sensible next step is to use them alongside reputable medical guidance, while remembering that improved critical thinking is promising evidence, not a guarantee of better health outcomes.
🩺 Why Media Literacy Belongs in Public Health
Rosemary Smith, Managing Director of Getting Better Foundation, makes a compelling case that media literacy deserves a place alongside traditional public health education. Her argument is straightforward: misleading information about supplements, vaccinations, and other health choices can influence individual decisions and weaken collective efforts to protect health. Learning to evaluate sources, recognize persuasion, and question unsupported claims can help people make better-informed choices. The goal is not simply to catch fake news, but to build skills that remain useful as information channels change.
The evidence supports the broader premise, although the benefits depend on how media literacy is taught and applied. Research on health communication and misinformation links information quality and trust to how people interpret health risks. Media literacy is not a substitute for medical expertise, nor can it resolve every disagreement about health policy. It can, however, give people a practical framework for checking claims before acting on them. Treating these skills as a public health priority could help people make more informed decisions without requiring them to become amateur doctors or professional fact-checkers.
The Better Take:
Media literacy is a practical life skill, not an invitation to distrust everything. Before spending money on a supplement or changing a health routine, check the evidence, identify the source, and look for independent confirmation. A few deliberate questions can help avoid costly mistakes while making credible health advice easier to recognize and use.
📚 Getting Better Recommendations
The News Literacy Project, Be Health Informed: This lesson tackles a familiar problem: health and wellness claims compete for attention across social feeds, websites, advertisements, and personal recommendations. Designed as an educational resource, it helps learners evaluate health information, recognize common warning signs, understand why misinformation can be persuasive, and identify characteristics of credible sources. Rather than asking people to memorize a list of trusted websites, the approach encourages them to develop judgment they can use when the next miracle cure appears in their feed.