Authors
-
Susan Wnorowski, PharmD, Senior Medical Information Leader in the Pharmaceutical Industry
-
Joy Yee, PharmD, Associate Director, Medical Content Strategy, Gilead Sciences, Inc
Key Takeaways
Misinformation and disinformation harm healthcare by spreading confusion and mistrust, especially through digital platforms, highlighting the need for effective strategies to address them.
- Misinformation is spread without intent to deceive, while disinformation is deliberately created to mislead or cause harm.
- Both can negatively affect healthcare by increasing confusion, fear, and mistrust among patients and the public.
- Social media and online platforms amplify the spread of inaccurate information, making it essential for Medical Affairs professionals to actively combat it using structured approaches and regulatory guidance.
Introduction:
Misinformation refers to false or inaccurate information that is spread without the intent to deceive, while disinformation is the deliberate creation or dissemination of false information intended to mislead or cause harm.1 Both types of information can significantly impact healthcare, leading to confusion, fear, and mistrust among patients and the public. Meanwhile, social media, online forums, and user-generated content platforms allow information (accurate or not) to circulate rapidly. While these platforms offer tremendous opportunities for patient education and engagement, they also enable widespread dissemination of misleading or harmful claims. This article draws insights from the presentation “They said WHAT?!?” delivered at the Medical Affairs Professional Society (MAPS) 2025 Americas and EMEA Annual Meetings event Americas and EU Meetings to address these issues, summarizing the FDA’s guidance, and suggesting a model for Medical Affairs professionals to effectively combat misinformation and disinformation.
FDA Guidance on Addressing Misinformation:
The FDA has issued draft guidance to empower pharmaceutical companies to address internet-based misinformation voluntarily.1 This guidance, when followed, allows companies to correct independent third-party misinformation without triggering certain FDA promotional requirements. The guidance emphasizes the importance of truthful, accurate, and scientifically sound communication. Key points include:
- Clearly identifying the specific misinformation and the specific third-party communication in which it appeared.
- Providing tailored responsive communication that is directly relevant and scientifically sound.
- Ensuring the information is limited to addressing the misinformation and providing mechanisms to obtain current FDA labeling.
- Not applying the guidance to personal opinions or experiences.
Strategies for Identifying and Addressing Misinformation:
The SIFT Framework for Evaluating Online Content
Medical Affairs professionals can adopt several best practices to effectively address misinformation.
There are several effective strategies for identifying misinformation. One method, known by the acronym SIFT, is an approach to evaluating online content quickly and effectively.4 While the four steps: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace the source are simple on the surface, each has deeper relevance in a healthcare context. Additionally, SIFT was meant to be fast and easy to use. SIFT is about preserving cognitive bandwidth by addressing misinformation efficiently, avoiding unnecessary deep dives that can reinforce misinformation through repetition or emotional engagement.
Stop and Reflect: Take a moment to evaluate the information before responding. In the digital environment, the impulse to respond immediately, or share without verification, is a major factor in the spread of false information. the “Stop” step is especially vital because healthcare audiences often assume that professionals are endorsing accuracy when they engage with content.
Investigate the Source: Research the origin of the information to determine its credibility. A valuable enhancement is explaining lateral reading, a method used by professional fact-checkers. Instead of analyzing the page itself, open new tabs to see what other reputable sources say about the author or site. Lateral reading is faster and more reliable than trying to evaluate a site’s own “About” section. It helps identify whether an organization has known biases, financial conflicts, or prior involvement in misleading health claims. This is particularly relevant when health misinformation is produced by entities that imitate legitimate medical websites. There are resources such as the America Accreditation Commission International (AACI) that evaluates and certifies the quality and accuracy of information presented on web sites.2,3
Find Better Coverage: In healthcare, “better coverage” typically means using peer‑reviewed medical journals, professional society statements, reputable health systems, or national or international public health agencies. Healthcare professionals should rely on evidence-based aggregators such as systematic reviews, meta-analyses, or established clinical guidelines when checking claims, as these sources synthesize large volumes of data and reduce the risk of cherry-picked evidence.
Trace the Original Source False information frequently arises from a variety of sources including misinterpreted abstracts, out-of-context figures generalized beyond studied populations, and preclinical research presented as clinical evidence. Tracing back to the original study helps uncover where claims originated. This step is essential because many misleading claims in healthcare stem not from fabricated information, but from distorted interpretations of legitimate sources.
Dissemination Techniques:
Credible sources should be referenced in the updated communication to address the misinformation. Medical Affairs professionals should carefully select credible authoritative sources, which may include: peer‑reviewed research, professional society guidelines, regulatory agency communications, and validated clinical resources. Citing reputable evidence serves two crucial purposes: it reinforces the reliability of the message and provides transparency regarding the origin of the information. In the digital environment where misinformation is often framed to “look scientific”, clear attribution to trusted sources such as the FDA, CDC, WHO, and recognized medical journals helps differentiate factual content from misleading information. Additionally, integrating source evaluation frameworks, such as accreditation provided by organizations like the America Accreditation Commission International (AACI), supports the use of high‑quality online content and helps ensure patients and the public are directed to scientifically sound information.5
Offer Additional Resources
Providing supplementary educational materials enhances comprehension and empowers individuals to explore accurate information further. These materials may include infographics, patient handouts, frequently asked questions (FAQs), short explainer videos, links to reputable medical websites, or summaries of clinical guidelines written in accessible language. Supplementary resources can also help contextualize complex scientific topics—such as clinical trial results, vaccine mechanisms, or emerging therapeutic modalities, thereby reducing the risk of misinterpretation. When audiences have access to multiple forms of supportive information, they are better equipped to evaluate claims independently and less susceptible to misleading narratives. For healthcare professionals, offering these resources to them also demonstrates transparency and a commitment to patient education, which enhances trust and strengthens the clinician‑patient relationship.
Engage with the Audience
Pharmaceutical companies may have their own internal processes and business rules to follow for how to engage the audience to correct misinformation. Engagement is a critical component of misinformation correction, as passive dissemination alone is often insufficient in the fast‑moving digital landscape. Medical Affairs professionals can address concerns directly, clarify misunderstandings, and build rapport with patients and external stakeholders. The FDA draft guidance does not limit companies from using the same platforms where the misinformation was found, but instead, offers options for communications via different platforms.
An example of an engagement can be:
An influencer posted misinformation online stating the company’s drug X works for an unapproved use.
The Medical Affairs professional can post, as the maker of drug X, that we are sharing this information to correct a previous post by the social media influencer. Drug X is FDA-approved for XYZ and it’s safety and effectiveness for any other use has not been established. You can find the full FDA-required labeling for Drug X here…
Additional strategies for engagement may include hosting live Q&A sessions, community forums, webinars, or moderated social media discussions where audiences can ask questions in real time.
Medical Affairs professionals can encourage clinicians to share online health content encountered. Medical Affairs professionals may help clinicians create an environment where questions are welcomed, confusion is addressed without stigma, and providers are seen as supportive advisors rather than gatekeepers. This practice may encourage clinicians to foster trust and open dialogue, positioning themselves as reliable partners in navigating digital health information.
Across all formats, respectful dialogue is essential. Many individuals who encounter misinformation are not intentionally spreading falsehoods but are seeking clarity in an overwhelming information environment. Engaging with empathy, acknowledging concerns, validating emotions, and guiding individuals toward evidence-based understanding can significantly improve the success of corrective communication.
Integrating Dissemination Techniques into a Strategic Plan
For maximum impact, these dissemination techniques should be incorporated into a comprehensive communication plan that anticipates potential misinformation scenarios and outlines protocols for response. Such plans may include predetermined communication channels, designated spokespersons, procedures for rapid fact‑checking, and consistent message framing aligned with regulatory guidance. By combining credible sourcing, educational resources, and interactive engagement within a cohesive strategy, Medical Affairs professionals can help combat against misinformation while fostering a more informed and health‑literate public.
Conclusion
Misinformation and disinformation continue to pose significant challenges in today’s rapidly evolving digital information landscape, where unverified information can quickly circulate and shape perceptions before credible medical guidance is delivered. Regulatory frameworks, such as the FDA’s draft guidance, underscore the necessity of transparent, accurate, and scientifically sound communication, ensuring that responses are focused, evidence-based, and consistent with established labeling and regulatory standards. Best practices include validating sources, critically assessing information utilizing varied communication platforms, and responding swiftly. These best practices can help Medical Affairs professionals establish a trustworthy and reliable flow of information for both clinicians and the public.
In addition to recognition and evaluation, Medical Affairs professionals must take proactive steps to identify misinformation using effective tools like the SIFT method and counter misinformation by deploying deliberate dissemination strategies that prioritize credibility, clarity, and audience engagement. By integrating authoritative sourcing, supplementary educational content, and interactive communication techniques within a comprehensive, organization-wide approach, Medical Affairs professionals can bolster community resilience against misleading information. Ultimately, maintaining a proactive, knowledgeable, and empathetic communication stance is vital for safeguarding the integrity of healthcare information and enabling informed decision-making. Ongoing collaboration, education, and vigilance within the Medical Affairs domain will be essential to diminishing the impact of misinformation and promoting a more informed, health-literate society.
References:
- FDA Draft Guidance for Industry: Addressing Misinformation About Medical Devices and Prescription Drugs Questions and Answers. July 2024. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/media/179827/download
- Goldwire MA, Johnson ST, Abdalla M, et al. Medical misinformation: A primer and recommendations for pharmacists. J Am Coll Clin Pharm 2023;(6):497-511. Available at: https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jac5.1760
- Phillips JA, Hanrahan CT, Brown JN, et al. Guiding principles for evaluating tertiary health care resources: The A2C2Quire Framework. J Am Coll Clin Pharm 2020:3:485-93. Available at: https://accpjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jac5.1176
- Van Kampen K. Evaluating Resources and Misinformation. The SIFT Method. Available online at : https://guides.lib.uchicago.edu/c.php?g=1241077&p=9082322. Last Assessed on 24-Apr-2026.
- American Accreditation Commission International. Available at: https://aacihealthcare.com/about-us/
