Experience of Health Professionals with Misinformation and Its Impact on Their Job Practice: Qualitative Interview Study (Preprint)

Background: Misinformation is often disseminated through social media, where information is spread rapidly and easily. Misinformation affects many patients' decisions to follow a treatment prescribed by health professionals (HPs). For example, chronic patients (eg, those with diabetes) may not follow their prescribed treatment plans. During the recent pandemic, misinformed people rejected COVID-19 vaccines and public health measures, such as masking and physical distancing, and used unproven treatments. Objective: This study investigated the impact of health-threatening misinformation on the practices of health care professionals in the United Kingdom, especially during the outbreaks of diseases where a great amount of health-threatening misinformation is produced and released. The study examined the misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 outbreak to determine how it may have impacted practitioners' perceptions of misinformation and how that may have influenced their practice. In particular, this study explored the answers to the following questions: How do HPs react when they learn that a patient has been misinformed? What misinformation do they believe has the greatest impact on medical practice? What aspects of change and intervention in HPs' practice are in response to misinformation? Methods: This research followed a qualitative approach to collect rich data from a smaller subset of health care practitioners working in the United Kingdom. Data were collected through 1-to-1 online interviews with 13 health practitioners, including junior and senior physicians and nurses in the United Kingdom. Results: Research findings indicated that HPs view misinformation in different ways according to the scenario in which it occurs. Some HPs consider it to be an acute incident exacerbated by the pandemic, while others see it as an ongoing phenomenon (always present) and address it as part of their daily work. HPs are developing pathways for dealing with misinformation. Two main pathways were identified: first, to educate the patient through coaching, advising, or patronizing and, second, to devote resources, such as time and effort, to facilitate 2-way communication between the patient and the health care provider through listening and talking to them. Conclusions: HPs do not receive the confidence they deserve from patients. The lack of trust in health care practitioners has been attributed to several factors, including (1) trusting alternative sources of information (eg, social media) (2) patients' doubts about HPs' experience (eg, a junior doctor with limited experience), and (3) limited time and availability for patients, especially during the pandemic. There are 2 dimensions of trust: patient-HP trust and patient-information trust. There are 2 necessary actions to address the issue of lack of trust in these dimensions: (1) building trust and (2) maintaining trust. The main recommendations of the HPs are to listen to patients, give them more time, and seek evidence-based resources.