Authoritative vs. Credible Sources of COVID Health Information: When Necessary is not Sufficient

By M. Elaine Auld and John P. Allegrante

The COVID-19 pandemic and the explosion of infodemiology has brought into sharp focus the role of social media in disseminating science-based health information and its impact on consumers’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. To address the trustworthiness of health information on its platform, YouTube recently asked the National Academy of Medicine, an independent scientific advisor to the nation, to define what constitutes an “authoritative” source of health information and the criteria by which such sources derive and maintain their authority.  Sadly, no longer can the public simply rely on scientific or medical credentials of “experts,” many of whom are profiting in COVID-19 in “fringe science.”

Tasked with operationalizing how to assess the veracity of an organization’s online health information sources in an infodemic, the National Academy faces many important questions.

What level of authority of scientific information should be included or excluded? Who should be responsible for routine monitoring of compliance to specific standards, including visuals that can be as misleading as written or broadcast information? Is fact checking enough to undue harms of misinformation once it is already disseminated? 

Moreover, does the organization have potential conflicts of interest, given its advertisers, organizational supporters, political contributions, or PACs? How do changes in leadership or mission of such companies potentially impact the reliability of health information disseminated? Case in point: Alphabet, the parent company of Google and its subsidiary YouTube, is controlled by multiple investors in cloud computing, advertising, software and hardware, and desktop applications, which make billions from web marketing.

And what is the potential opportunity for Federal leadership in this area? An interagency panel of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) could be established to focus on digital health communication, with particular attention to social media. The panel could be charged with leading an effort to map a new research agenda and advise Congress on funding necessary to pursue the agenda within various operating divisions of DHHS, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), National Institutes of Health (NIH), and other key Federal agencies.

HHS experts should also consider joining efforts of the World Health Organization, which is already ahead of the game. With input from more than 100 experts from 20 different disciplines and 35 different countries, the WHO published a series of infodemic research priorities, such as identifying better tools for detecting harmful misinformation and strengthening resilience of individuals and communities to face future infodemics. 

Yet in focusing on the criteria for establishing what constitutes an “authoritative” health information source, are the National Academy and YouTube missing an equally, if not more important, question? Is an authoritative source of health information the same as a credible source in the public’s eye? 

The nation’s experience with COVID-19 and getting people vaccinated is emblematic. NIH’s Dr. Anthony Fauci recently stated his three key principles of health communication: “fidelity to the truth, which is grounded in science-based evidence and data; transparency, including the willingness to acknowledge to the public what is not yet known; and communicating clearly to achieve understanding by all persons.” Despite reporting of Dr. Fauci and other “authoritative” scientific sources, such information, particularly when coming from government sources, is not considered credible by all people.

For example, a poll conducted last month by the non-profit, nonpartisan PRRI (Public Religion Research Institute) revealed striking differences in the role of religion in vaccination intentions. The largest number of refusers were among white evangelical Protestants, Black Protestants, other Protestants of color, and Mormons. About another one-third in each of these groups were COVID-19 vaccine hesitant. Encouragement from a religious leader or a religious leader who was vaccinated, were rated by these groups as highly persuasive toward getting vaccinated. 

Effective health educators and communicators don’t rely on “silver bullets” but rather devote significant effort into understanding their audiences’ sources, beliefs, values, and communication channels. They develop and test communication concepts, messages, and materials with specific populations to ensure that messages are being tailored to their culture, language, level of education, health literacy, and other demographics. Thus, while quoting scientific authoritative sources may be a necessary criterion for responsible social media companies in COVID-19, it will not be sufficient to favorably influence the minds, hearts, and behaviors of all consumers.

If we want to protect and promote the public’s health, national guidelines for the authenticity and authoritativeness of online health information are critical for improving our response to future health emergencies. But first we must also understand how diversity, religious and cultural beliefs, life experiences, and other factors influence the perceived credibility of such information and its influence on consumers’ health behaviors.

This will require a lasting Federal investment not only in the biomedical sciences for fidelity to the truth, but also in the behavioral and social sciences for communicating clearly to improve the understanding and health decision-making of all Americans.

Article details

Source Trust and COVID-19 Information Sharing: The Mediating Roles of Emotions and Beliefs About Sharing

Linqi Lu, MA, Jiawei Liu, PhD, Y. Connie Yuan, PhD, Kelli S. Burns, PhD, Enze Lu, Dongxiao Li, PhD

First Published December 24, 2020 Research Article

Health Education & Behavior

About the authors