Why Health Experts Must Rethink Communication

Health experts are increasingly concerned that false information spreads more rapidly and widely today than ever before. Every week, I read headlines about a supplement that supposedly prevents cancer or “one simple trick” to increase longevity.

For most of my career, I believed that the best response to these types of claims was to communicate more facts more clearly. Like many of my colleagues, I was trained to explain risk and benefit using evidence and logic. We write articles, give lectures, and expect that policymakers and the press will amplify our findings.

But a comprehensive new analysis has helped me understand why it is so urgent for those of us working in health to rethink our approach.

How Does Health Information Flow Today?

In September 2025, researchers Renée DiResta and Rachel Kleinfeld published a report for the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace that lays out how the media environment has fundamentally changed.

For most of the 20th century, experts and organizations have communicated in a top-down model. Think tanks, universities, and health agencies produced research. Journalists and editors acted as gatekeepers, deciding which stories reached the public. What they communicated was considered authoritative because of the institution’s prestige and the way in which they wrote.

That system is no longer dominant. Public attention now flows through diffuse networks, rather than from top-to-bottom, and is determined by algorithms, influencers, and communities. Influence belongs less to institutions than to individuals, e.g., content creators on YouTube, TikTok, X, and podcasts who build trust with audiences by speaking informally and directly.

Credibility comes from perceived authenticity and emotional resonance, rather than from credentials and polished prose. Who do people trust more now? The person talking rapidly and colloquially in a “get ready with me” video or the person wearing a business suit and lecturing from a stage?

Why Traditional Health Communication Fails

This shift helps explain why experts increasingly feel sidelined from public discussion about important health topics. My colleagues and I continue to rely on facts, citations, and credentials as our primary markers of legitimacy. We release reports, then rely on our institutional affiliations to persuade people to read them.

Yet to large segments of the public, these appear difficult to absorb, as if we are hiding the truth behind words and a glossy veneer. What we were trained to value can signal insincerity to audiences who trust messier, more spontaneous voices that use language that they can more easily relate to.

Social platforms reward immediacy and interaction. They amplify content that sparks emotion, particularly anger or humor. Long reports or carefully scripted videos rarely travel beyond networks of experts. And when health experts do try to communicate on social media, we often speak in a broadcast style, dropping content onto a platform as if we are giving a lecture, rather than engaging in a conversation with audiences.

How Health Influence Works Now

The Kleinfeld–DiResta report proposes that there is a new triad of influence: creators, algorithms, and communities.

Creators build narratives with their followers, not just for them. Algorithms promote the most engaging content, regardless of how accurate it is. Communities then repeat and remix messages, creating buy-in through participation. A health rumor or conspiracy theory moves from a small community into the broader public discourse within days, reinforced by “likes” and repetition.

Misinformation spreads effectively right now because people are more likely to trust what is shared in their community than what they read from an outside source.

What Health Experts Must Do Differently

The Kleinfeld–DiResta report offers three recommendations for experts and institutions who want to improve public understanding of health issues.

Media Essential Reads

Why Claire Danes' Face Matters

Ignore Smarter: The Psychology of Filtering Out the Noise

First, health institutions need to build communication capacity before the next major public health crisis. That means investing in people and tools to engage audiences continuously, not waiting until the next pandemic. For example, health institutions should consider building “creator labs” to translate complex findings into accessible formats.

At the same time, individual doctors, scientists, and nurses who are willing to speak publicly should be supported, trained, and protected. I have been encouraging many of my infectious disease colleagues, for example, to embrace social media and post videos about their support for vaccines.

Second, collaboration matters. Health experts should partner with trusted influencers, such as parent bloggers, fitness coaches, or community leaders, who already have the attention of diverse audiences. These collaborations may feel uncomfortable at first, but they are often the fastest way to inject accurate information into public conversation. Health experts and organizations should amplify each other, because algorithms reward consistency and repetition.

Third, academic institutions should measure professional success not simply by academic publications but by engagement and trust with the general public and influential policy-makers. Comments, shares, and community participation are imperfect proxies, but they do help indicate when a message resonates.

Will Health Experts Adapt to the New Media Environment?

Will health experts continue speaking only to shrinking audiences of like-minded people? I am hopeful that the current shake-up of federal health agencies will serve as a call to action for health professionals to increase their presence and responsiveness in the new information ecosystem.