Three publications on the credibility of health information on social media

18 October, 2022

Dear HIFA colleagues,

I would like to open discussion on three recent publications that explore how to ensure the credibility of health information on social media. The first is a paper from the National Academy of Medicine, and the second and third are deliberations around the NAM paper by the Association of Medical Royal Colleges and a group of experts brought together by WHO and BMJ. I have included a few extracts from each and added my comments below.

1.National Academy of Medicine (US). Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media: Principles and Attributes

https://nam.edu/identifying-credible-sources-of-health-information-in-so...

ABSTRACT: Social media is widely used as a source of health information for the general public. The potential for information shared through social media to influence health outcomes necessitates action by social media platforms to enhance access and exposure to high-quality, science-based information. This paper summarizes the work of an independent advisory group convened by the National Academy of Medicine that deliberated and gathered information to develop a set of initial principles and attributes that could inform platforms’ identification and possible elevation of credible sources of health information...

2. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. A paper on the principles and attributes of ensuring the credibility of health information in social media

May 2022

https://www.aomrc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Principles_attribute...

Currently there are no consistent processes for assuring the quality of the vast quantity of health information available on-line...

accreditation/prior vetting is an imperfect proxy for the evaluation of an organisation’s credibility as a source of health information and should be viewed as a preliminary indicator

The question is whether there is a range of bodies whose status and/or robust and transparent regulatory regime merits an automatic or preliminary assumption of source credibility.

It would seem sensible that this is the case. For practical and logical purposes it seems right that a range of UK organisations such as Government Arm’s Length Bodies, NHS provider organisations, academic journals, universities should be recognised as credible providers of health information...

As in the US, this then leaves the question of how organisations who would not be considered to be within the category of automatically credible, through dint of their regulatory/governance arrangement, should be assessed...

Finally, there remains the issue of individuals as providers of health information...

The Academy believes that what is appropriate and practical for both non pre-judged organisations and individuals has to be the subject of further details work and discussion by social media platforms and key stakeholders.

3. WHO online consultation meeting to discuss global principles for identifying credible sources of health information on social media

https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/digital-health-documents/f...

To help address the spread of misinformation and disinformation, the World Health Organization (WHO) is working to make credible health information more accessible. The WHO is working with the technology industry to stop the spread of misinformation and disinformation2 and has produced resources to help people identify non-credible sources of information3

An online consultation meeting was hosted by the WHO Digital Channels Team, in close collaboration with National Academy of Medicine (USA), and facilitated by BMJ on 15 December 2021. Fifteen global health experts with backgrounds in public health and health communication participated in the meeting.

The objectives:

1) to review the paper published by NAM [1 above]

2) to discuss whether the principles and attributes for identifying credible sources of health information on social media (Table 1) can be applied globally; and

3) to discuss if there are any challenges to applying the principles in different regions.

There was consensus among all participants that the principles, “science-based”, “credible” and “transparent and accountable” and the attributes attached to these principles can broadly be applied globally. The principles were seen as laudable and something health information providers and social media platforms should hold to.

Suggestions for social media platforms

- While the principles were seen as important for social media platforms to use to help identify credible sources of health information, participants felt that these principles could also be used to help guide content creators/influencers on social media platforms...

- Participants also strongly felt that the general public needs media literacy training on how to identify whether the health sources they come across online are credible or not...

- Furthermore... it was suggested that social media platforms should strive to provide content moderation in as many markets and languages as realistically possible to identify and act upon sources of misinformation...

- Social media companies are strongly encouraged to make a commitment to supporting their users in the journey of attaining the highest possible standard of health, eliminating misinformation

from their platforms, and actively sharing information on what they are doing to reach these goals.

COMMENT:

1. It is encouraging to see the hugely increased interest and focus on how to improve the awareness, availability and use of relaible healthcare information.

2. The methods used in the deliberations above seem to be based on small expert groups and static online surveys. The latter were perhaps not well publicised or fully inclusive (I was unaware of them). The process could have been enriched substantially (and cost-effectively) through thematic discussions on HIFA.

3. While social media is largely responsible for misinformation, it doesn't make sense to be looking at social media in isolation. We should be looking at the full range of ways in which the public access health information, including websites.

4. It seems odd that none of the publications even mentions the Health on the Net Foundation. This Geneva-based NGO is working in offical relations with WHO and has been working on these issues for *27 years* (albeit with a focus on websites rather than social media, but the principles are the same). has developed a sensible approach - the HoN Code - which kitemarks organisations whose *processes* indicate provision of reliable health information. They will have already thought through the issues and would have much to contribute from their experience.

Where is the HoN Foundation in this discussion?

5. The NNAM and AMRC are health-professional focused. The WHO expert group appears to be more diverse but very small (15 people). This topic demands a much wider range of stakeholder engagement, including and especially the library and information science community. HIFA is uniquely positioned to contribute a wide stakeholder base, already focused on the challenge of increasing the availability and use of reliable healthcare information.

Neil Pakenham-Walsh, Global Coordinator HIFA, www.hifa.org neil@hifa.org

Global Healthcare Information Network: Working in official relations with WHO