Questioning information in the realm of healthcare can be a wise move. Doubt can prompt individuals to seek a second opinion when they suspect a misdiagnosis and can lead them to verify the credibility of health advice sources. Yet, in today’s digital landscape, where misinformation spreads rapidly and gains traction on influential platforms, skepticism can present challenges. The Pew Research Center notes a decline in public trust in medical science, a trend observed across various groups and institutions. Even a slight erosion of trust in medical science could potentially harm health outcomes.

Nevertheless, trust in medical scientists among Americans remains robust, hovering around 80% as of December 2021. Healthcare practitioners typically enjoy higher levels of trust than researchers, as evidenced by Gallup’s annual Honesty and Ethics poll, where nurses and medical doctors rank among the most trusted professions. Understanding the attributes that garner trust in medical professionals within the general populace could hold the key to addressing medical skepticism both in healthcare settings and in individuals’ daily lives.

Defining Medical Skepticism Medical skepticism, though defined in various ways, essentially involves doubting the efficacy of conventional medical care in significantly improving one’s health. Melody Butler, BSN, RN, CIC, founder of Nurses Who Vaccinate, identifies five distinct levels of patients’ attitudes towards medical treatment:

1. Pro-Treatment: Fully supportive of treatment.
2. Pro-Treatment But Hesitant: Supportive but with questions, needing guidance.
3. On the Fence: Uncertain, requiring substantial guidance to decide.
4. Anti-Treatment With Exceptions: Resistant but open to certain treatments.
5. Adamantly Anti-Treatment: Firmly against treatment, possibly aligned with anti-treatment movements.

While the attention often focuses on adamantly anti-treatment groups, legitimate reasons exist for skepticism toward conventional medicine. Historical mistreatment and current experiences of systemic discrimination in healthcare settings contribute to mistrust, particularly among racial and ethnic minorities and LGBTQ individuals. However, such skepticism can lead to adverse consequences, including reluctance to seek or accept care, exacerbating health disparities.

Navigating Medical Misinformation The proliferation of medical misinformation complicates matters. Dubbed an “infodemic” by the World Health Organization and the United Nations, inaccurate medical information, particularly concerning COVID-19, has spread rapidly online. The Office of the Surgeon General (OSG) outlines how misinformation exploits emotional appeals, encourages engagement through social media mechanisms, and reinforces false narratives via algorithmic dissemination. Despite often unwittingly shared, misinformation can lead to detrimental outcomes, such as vaccine hesitancy and adoption of unproven treatments.

Terminology Surrounding Medical Misinformation Various terms describe false medical information, including misinformation, propaganda, disinformation, fake news, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and antiscience. Each plays a role in shaping public perception and trust in healthcare systems and professionals.

Addressing Medical Skepticism Efficient communication is key to addressing medical skepticism in healthcare settings. Implementing communication frameworks can enhance patient-provider relationships and foster receptivity to new ideas. For instance, the BATHE framework involves exploring patients’ concerns, emotions, troubles, coping strategies, and empathizing with their experiences. Such approaches can promote trust, facilitate informed decision-making, and mitigate the impact of medical misinformation.

• Visibility: public