Empowering Medical Trainees to Confront the Misinformation Epidemic

Published on: Jan 26, 2026

Misinformation, disinformation, and malinformation have garnered a great deal of attention from scholars, healthcare professionals, and ethicists. Legal scholar Tim Caulfield has emerged as a leading voice on this issue in his attempts to educate people about the threats to health that misinformation poses. It’s helpful to tease out the differences between these concepts. Misinformation refers to false information that is shared carelessly or without a malicious intent. Disinformation, on the other hand, is false information that is deliberately shared with the intent to deceive others. Finally, malinformation is true but sensitive information that is shared publicly (doxxing is an example).  Here, we will focus specifically on the challenges that medical misinformation poses and how we can better train future physicians and other clinicians with regard to this growing problem.

Medical misinformation is increasing year by year with the increasing surge in social media usage and digital platforms. One of us (LR) had multiple patient encounters which required navigating a friendly conversation about the dangers of misinformation. One notable example was when a middle-aged patient in the primary care setting asked about a new viral detox drink that claims to reverse chronic illness. When the patient showed me (LR) the social media post from TikTok, I immediately recognized it was a paid-promotion ad. Although it was a classic example of medical misinformation, I hesitated about how to explain this to the patient without sounding dismissive. I realized I had never been taught how to navigate that kind of conversation.

In an era where social media shapes public opinion faster than any journal article, misinformation has become one of the most pervasive threats to public health. Tragically, one of the most prominent purveyors of medical  misinformation regarding vaccines is the current US Secretary of Health and Human Services. The World Health Organization has termed this an “infodemic” – an overabundance of information, some accurate and much of it not, making it difficult for people to find trustworthy guidance.

The Digital Double-Edged Sword

 Of course, there are many positive impacts of social media and digital information. The digitization of health information democratizes access to educational material, allows patients to connect with others, and encourages individual research about their conditions and treatment options. Additionally, online communities and social support groups can improve emotional well-being and assist patients in navigating difficult health journeys.

However, the same systems that spread helpful information unfortunately also amplify falsehoods. Health misinformation spreads rapidly on social media, especially when content is sensational or emotionally charged. False claims about vaccines, miracle supplements, or “natural cures” can reach millions before public health experts can respond.

The 2020 COVID-19 pandemic further illustrated this problem. The politicization of health policy contributed to widespread confusion and mistrust of medical authorities. Politicians and public figures sometimes disseminated inaccurate information, shaping patient beliefs and behaviors that undermined public health efforts. This mistrust and uncertainty are dangerous to public health as it discourages patients from seeking guidance from medical professionals; instead, patients may make harmful health decisions based on inaccurate digital information.

The Ethical Challenge

 The question remains: what is the physician’s role in combatting medical misinformation? For clinicians, this infodemic is more than just an annoyance; it is an ethical dilemma. Clinicians are committed to respecting patient autonomy, which requires informed decision-making. Thus, when patients rely on false or misleading information, autonomy itself becomes compromised.

Nevertheless, physicians cannot constantly monitor the internet for medical misinformation. Although there are notable examples of physicians who regularly combat misinformation (Dr. Peter Hotez being a notable example), it is simply too herculean a task for individual physicians to take on this role. There is no easy solution to resolving the misinformation epidemic; however, physicians can equip patients with the tools to critically evaluate what they encounter online. Doing so upholds the principles of beneficence (“do good”) and non-maleficence (“do no harm”).

The Gap in Medical Education

 Despite the severity of the problem, most medical trainees receive no formal instruction on how to address misinformation during patient encounters. While curricula teach sensitive conversations (end-of-life care, substance use, nonadherence), they rarely cover, “What do I say when a patient tells me that a social media post cures their disease?”

An encouraging sign is that the AAMC in 2022 developed a grant program that funded efforts at a handful of medical schools to address medical misinformation. Although such efforts are laudable, they are not comprehensive enough, leaving many medical schools ill-equipped in educating their students in how to better address medical misinformation.

This leaves trainees unprepared. Many improvise, unsure how to challenge misinformation without alienating patients. The result is silence, and silence allows misinformation to persist.

A Three-Step Framework for the Clinic

 As a participant in the Bioethics and Professionalism Honors Program at Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine, LR focused her capstone project on addressing this gap in medical education by researching evidence-based intervention strategies. The goal of the project was to create a structured approach which can help trainees feel more confident when addressing the topic of medical misinformation. This practical framework involves three simple steps that can help guide productive conversations with patients:

1. Where is the information coming from?
   Who posted this? What are their credentials or motives? Considering bias and intent helps patients evaluate credibility.
2. Are the claims evidence-backed?
   Did the post include sources as to where the information is coming from? Discuss whether the post cites peer-reviewed data or reputable sources.
3. Where can I get the facts?
   Is there a better resource I can go to which is more reliable? Redirect patients to credible educational websites designed for the public, such as MedlinePlus or specialty society sites, rather than primary literature that can be misinterpreted.

This reframes the conversation as collaborative, rather than corrective: “Let’s find the truth together,” instead of “you’re wrong.”

Building Digital Literacy Into Medicine

 Health misinformation is not just a communication problem; it’s a literacy problem. Individuals with lower health literacy are significantly more likely to believe inaccurate health claims. Open-ended questions about patients’ confidence in evaluating online information can help identify those who would benefit from guidance.

Workshops on improving health literacy emphasize the need for practical tools to identify and access reliable sources. Physicians should be prepared to provide these tools and guidance.

Training Tomorrow’s Clinicians

 Integrating misinformation education into medical curricula does not require a radical overhaul. Case-based discussions of real-world misinformation scenarios can help trainees practice addressing inaccurate claims during patient encounters. Modules on digital health literacy and communication provide structured guidance on evaluating sources and engaging patients respectfully.

Collaboration with public health and informatics programs can further equip trainees with tools and strategies to combat misinformation. Physicians remain among the most trusted sources of health information and preserving that trust requires equipping trainees to engage patients effectively while maintaining empathy and evidence-based guidance.

A Call to Action

 The misinformation epidemic will not resolve on its own. Empowering trainees to confront misinformation with evidence, empathy, and education is essential for public health. Teaching medical students and residents how to guide patients toward reliable information helps protect both patient safety and the integrity of the physician-patient relationship.

Lily Rajaee, BS, MS, is a medical student at the Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine. Kayhan Parsi, JD, PhD, HEC-C is the John B. Francis Co-Chair in Bioethics and Professor of Bioethics at the Loyola University Chicago Stritch School of Medicine.