1.5 Common Mistakes in Using Sources of Health Information

What are the common shortcuts that people take when locating, using, and sharing health information? A recent study found that 59% of the articles shared on social media haven’t even been read by the person who shared it (Gabielkov et al., 2016). While reading the headline can be a timesaver, it doesn’t give you the opportunity to evaluate the authenticity of the claims. This practice also contributes to creating an echo chamber, whereby people in the same social circles share the same article, thus reinforcing the same message.

Video: This Video Will Change Your Life

Video Transcript

A separate issue is clickbait, which are dramatic, misleading, or overpromising headlines written to entice someone to click the link, and are, as a result, often shared frequently on social media. Take the following headlines as examples, Do your friends secretly dislike you? Watch out for these four warning signs. or Seven simple tricks actors use to keep their hair bouncy. Find out how they do it. These types of articles specifically target readers by using emotions like fear, intrigue, and insecurity to manipulate people into clicking. Often, those who produce this type of content generate revenue for each time someone clicks the link, or through advertisements or products sold on that page. Because of these factors, health information claims are less credible.

While it may be easier or more convenient to trust what a tertiary source tells you, it’s best to go back to the original source of information to verify the claims made. For example, if you read a website that says “Researchers say getting four hours of sleep a night is healthy” you should look for information that describes the journal article cited, and then find that article and see if the information matches. The authors of tertiary sources of information may have misinterpreted the results, made assumptions based on claims, taken research claims out of context, or overblown the results either because of poor quality writing or intentionally as a means of manipulating readers for other purposes, such as selling a product or idea.

Besides tertiary sources, shortcuts also happen with primary sources. A common error is only reading the title and abstract of a journal article, without reading the rest of the paper. Abstracts are meant to be short summaries which help the reader determine if the rest of the article fits what they are looking for, and thus, if they should read the other sections. Reading the other sections of the paper is vital in understanding the context of the study, evaluating the methods, and correctly interpreting the results. Without this process, a reader may not be able to pick up on cues that the results of the study may not be generalizable to a wider audience, such as a small sample size or a weak study design.

Keep in mind, no matter the type of source, whether it’s a research article or something shared through social media, using only one source to form a conclusion is another common error. Even if a high-enrollment research study comes out with strong results, until many other separate studies replicate the findings, we can’t say that the information is generally accepted.

Finally, check yourself to make sure that your own preconceived ideas and biases are not influencing you to automatically accept or dismiss a source’s claims. A recent study from the Pew Research Center (2018) gave participants a set of different statements and asked them to identify each as fact or opinion. Approximately 25% of participants identified most or all of the statements incorrectly. Participants were more likely to misidentify the statement when the content was in alignment with their political beliefs. This phenomenon of favoring information that confirms pre-existing beliefs is commonly known as confirmation bias. Another reason to think about how a source may or may not already fit with your beliefs.