Health Misinformation Carries Significant Hidden Costs, Study Finds

In an era of unlimited digital information, healthcare providers are reporting a concerning trend: patients making medical decisions based on misinformation they encounter online. The impact varies significantly across different patient populations, with potentially life-threatening consequences in some cases.

Medical misinformation doesn’t affect all patients equally, according to clinicians across various specialties. Its influence depends largely on a patient’s health literacy, previous experiences with healthcare systems, and in some instances, their mental health status.

Psychiatrist Richard Miller notes the variability he sees in his practice. “Some patients come with lengthy lists of online findings and questions, while others barely engage with digital information at all,” he explains. “I think the answer is variable. I think it really depends.”

What clinicians consistently observe is patients encountering medical information without the necessary context to interpret it accurately. A warning intended for a specific population might be misinterpreted as applying universally. Even a single headline can dramatically alter a patient’s perception.

Miller recently encountered a patient who feared a prescribed medication would cause dementia based on an advertisement she had seen. “She thought it was going to cause dementia, so you’ve got to be careful,” he recounted, highlighting how easily warnings can be misunderstood outside clinical settings.

Across medical specialties, practitioners describe a troubling pattern: misinformation fundamentally alters patients’ risk perception. Proven treatments may suddenly seem dangerous, while the risks of delaying or avoiding necessary care get minimized or overlooked entirely.

This shift can be particularly harmful in preventive medicine and cardiology, where many treatments aim to reduce long-term risks rather than provide immediate relief. Viet Le, a preventive cardiology clinician and researcher, witnesses this regularly. “We have people stopping therapies, deciding not to move forward with recommendations to start therapies,” he says. The consequences can be severe: “I don’t think it’s a far stretch to say people are dying based on misinformation who should be alive.”

Primary care physicians often encounter these consequences years later. Patients with chronic conditions like hypertension, diabetes, or high cholesterol may arrive after trying unproven approaches, only to discover their condition has significantly worsened. Jubril Oyeyemi, a primary care physician and founder of the Cherry Hill Free Clinic, describes seeing patients whose care was delayed because trust had been undermined. “There’s harm in it, there’s direct harm,” he emphasizes.

The timing of when patients encounter misinformation proves particularly challenging. When incorrect information comes before a clinical visit, it shapes how patients interpret everything that follows.

Le explains that misinformation often takes root early. “When misinformation gets out in front before you see your clinician…it takes a lot more time to overcome that,” he says. Clinicians may spend most of an appointment correcting misconceptions before they can even begin discussing treatment options.

At the core of health misinformation is a trust issue. Misinformation frequently undermines patient confidence in clinicians, medical institutions, and evidence-based care.

Oyeyemi observes this erosion of trust daily, particularly among patients with chronic conditions. He stresses that patients always have the right to decline treatment, but only if that decision is based on accurate information. “Refusing is not the problem. It’s that the refusal is based on misinformation,” he notes.

Clinicians emphasize that trust develops through relationships. Patients with established provider relationships typically feel more comfortable asking questions and expressing concerns. Newer relationships, or those affected by negative past experiences, can make patients more susceptible to external voices that feel more validating.

Today’s healthcare providers have evolved beyond their traditional roles—they’re now information interpreters. Patients often arrive having consumed extensive health content, requiring clinicians to help sort what’s relevant, accurate, and misleading.

Rather than discouraging patients from using technology or AI tools, many clinicians now encourage guided curiosity. As Le puts it, “We have an engaged patient who’s curious and who wants to know. Let’s lean into that.”

Clinicians suggest several practical steps for patients to navigate health information more effectively: start with trusted sources like professional medical organizations; pause before acting on new health information; consult with healthcare providers before making changes; and be skeptical of absolute claims.

Healthcare providers also stress the importance of accepting uncertainty in medicine. Medical knowledge evolves, and recommendations change as new evidence emerges. This isn’t a failure of medicine—it’s how science progresses.

As technology advances, the volume of both accurate and inaccurate health information will only increase. Clinicians say the solution isn’t restricting access but strengthening patient-provider relationships. Trust, context, and open dialogue remain the most powerful tools in combating health misinformation and ensuring patients receive appropriate care.