A response to questionable health information should address both the claim and the patient's concern. Begin by finding out what the person has read or heard, why it matters to them and which decision they are considering.
The U.S. Surgeon General's 2021 toolkit describes health misinformation in relation to the best available evidence at the time. It also encourages listening, empathy and credible sources while avoiding public shaming.
Establish the exact question
Ask to see the original post, article or product claim when possible. A headline, screenshot and full article may contain different information. Clarify the question the patient wants answered before preparing a correction.
Useful opening language might be: “Which part of this concerns you most?” or “What change are you considering because of this information?” These are suggested prompts, not a script that guarantees someone will change their mind.
Avoid starting with a judgment about the person's intelligence or motives. Keep the conversation focused on understanding the concern and evaluating the information.
Inspect the source together
MedlinePlus recommends examining who runs a health website, why it exists, how it is funded, where its information comes from and whether it is reviewed and current. It also advises checking how personal information is used.
A practical review can follow the evidence trail:
- Locate the original claim and its date.
- Identify the publisher, author and commercial interest.
- Open the cited evidence rather than relying on a headline.
- Check whether the evidence addresses the same population, outcome and question.
- Identify what remains uncertain or needs clinical interpretation.
The fourth step is a suggested evidence-checking question, not a declaration that any unfamiliar source is false. If you cannot verify a claim during the encounter, say so and arrange an appropriate follow-up.
Correct the claim without inventing a new one
In a fictional example, a patient brings a post promising that a product “works for everyone.” A nurse might respond: “Let's check what evidence the claim is based on and whether it applies to your situation. I will bring the product information and your question to the clinician reviewing your care.”
This example deliberately does not declare the product effective or ineffective. A real correction needs evidence about the actual product and claim. Do not replace an unsupported promise with an equally unsupported rebuttal.
MedlinePlus advises discussing health information with a healthcare professional before using it for personal decisions. It also recommends withholding uncertain social-media information from further sharing.
Leave a usable next step
Record the concern relevant to care, the information reviewed and who will answer any remaining question. Provide a specific, accessible resource rather than a long list of links with no explanation.
If a team repeatedly encounters the same misleading claim, consider a reviewed explanation that answers the recurring question and includes a source date. Recheck it when the evidence changes.
Related topics include communicating uncertainty, health literacy and risk communication.
Sources
- A Community Toolkit for Addressing Health Misinformation (accessed 2026-09-17) — Office of the U.S. Surgeon General, 2021.
- Evaluating Health Information (accessed 2026-09-17) — National Library of Medicine, MedlinePlus.