In an age brimming with information, navigating the sea of health advice has become akin to finding a needle in a haystack. A global survey, the 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report on Trust and Health, paints a stark picture: health misinformation isn’t just a fringe problem affecting a few, but a pervasive issue impacting nearly everyone, regardless of their background or beliefs. This comprehensive study, which gathered insights from over 16,000 individuals across 16 countries, reveals a worrying trend: seven out of ten people globally believe at least one false or disputed health claim is true. This isn’t limited to those with less education, or those who spend all their time on social media. As Richard Edelman, CEO of the company behind the research, pointed out, the data shatters the misconception that skepticism towards established medical consensus is confined to a particular segment of society. It’s an “impressive set of data,” he notes, underscoring that the issue is far more widespread than previously thought, touching “everyone.” This erosion of public trust, coupled with an overwhelming flood of information, is making it increasingly difficult for people to discern reliable health sources, profoundly impacting their decisions and even pushing them towards artificial intelligence for medical advice.
The surprising reach of health misinformation is a key takeaway from the Edelman Trust Barometer. The survey meticulously dissects various demographics, demonstrating that this phenomenon transcends traditional social and political fault lines. For instance, a striking 69% of university graduates believe at least one untrue health statement, a figure almost identical to the 70% observed among those without a higher education. Similarly, ideological leanings offer little protection, with 78% of right-leaning respondents and 64% of left-leaning individuals endorsing contested claims. This uniformity across educational and political spectrums challenges the long-held notion that misinformation is solely the domain of radicalized groups or those deemed “less informed.” Moreover, the pattern is consistent across different age groups and geographic regions, with developing countries showing higher rates than wealthier nations, despite the common perception that the United States is the primary hotbed for health misinformation. The survey effectively dismantles the idea that there’s a specific “type” of person susceptible to health inaccuracies, revealing instead a broader societal vulnerability.
One of the central culprits behind this widespread confusion is an overwhelming deluge of information. The experts at the Edelman Trust Institute suggest that the current crisis isn’t merely about a lack of reliable data, but rather an excess of content on digital platforms and social media. People are struggling to differentiate credible sources from misleading ones amidst a cacophony of contradictory messages. This “information overload” has taken a toll on individuals’ confidence in their own ability to make sound health decisions, dropping a significant 10 percentage points in just one year to 51%. The fading credibility of traditional media in health matters, particularly since the pre-pandemic era, only exacerbates this sense of insecurity. Richard Edelman himself admits, “People are overwhelmed with information, and I’m not sure if they can differentiate one source from another.” Jennifer Hauser, Global Health Chair at Edelman, adds that this excessive data volume can complicate what were once straightforward medical decisions for many.
In this landscape of uncertainty and information overload, artificial intelligence is stepping into a surprisingly prominent role. The report indicates that a substantial 35% of respondents are already turning to AI tools for health management, whether to understand symptoms, obtain instant answers, or even seek a second opinion. Among these AI users, 84% cite rapid responses as a primary motivator, while 74% use it as supplemental support for clinical diagnoses. However, this growing reliance on AI raises concerns among experts, particularly as some individuals begin to attribute complex medical functions to these tools. A striking 64% believe that someone proficient in AI could perform at least one medical task as competently, or even better, than a trained doctor. Within this group, 21% think AI could define treatments and medications, and 17% believe it could accurately diagnose diseases, highlighting a potential overestimation of AI’s current capabilities and a blurring of lines between human expertise and algorithmic assistance.
This burgeoning reliance on AI coincides with a noticeable strain in the relationship between patients and their doctors. While personal physicians remain the most trusted source of health information in the 16 markets surveyed, the report reveals clear signs of dissatisfaction and eroding trust. Patients often feel judged or experience a lack of open dialogue when discussing their health concerns, leading many to seek alternatives. Jennifer Hauser observes that some respondents perceive AI as a less judgmental and, in some cases, more welcoming alternative for medical guidance. “AI can be less judgmental than doctors,” she states, suggesting that patients are increasingly seeking professionals who are not just authorities but also empathetic guides through complex health decisions. This sentiment is echoed in other recent studies, such as one published in JAMA Network Open, which showed a significant drop in trust in doctors and hospitals in the U.S. from 71.5% in April 2020 to 40.1% by January 2024, signaling a broader systemic issue that goes beyond just misinformation.
Beyond the crisis of confidence, changing patient behaviors are also driven by the practical realities of accessing healthcare, particularly its escalating costs. Data from West Health in partnership with Gallup, for instance, indicated in 2025 that 35% of U.S. adults could not afford quality healthcare if needed. This burden disproportionately affects Black and Hispanic adults and low-income individuals, who report greater vulnerability to rising medical expenses. In this challenging environment, people are increasingly looking outside the traditional healthcare system for answers, turning to social media, influencer content, and AI-powered tools. A KFF survey in January 2026 further highlighted this, showing that 66% of American adults were concerned about their ability to pay medical expenses for themselves and their families, a figure that remained high at 64% by April. This financial strain, combined with the difficulty of navigating a confusing information landscape and a perceived lack of empathy from doctors, creates a perfect storm, pushing individuals towards readily available, albeit unverified, sources of health information and advice.
To effectively combat health misinformation, the researchers at Edelman emphasize that the approach cannot be based on the flawed assumption that only certain social groups are susceptible. Justin Blake, executive director of the Edelman Trust Institute, stresses that the survey’s most significant contribution is demonstrating this widespread vulnerability. Campaigns focused solely on factual corrections are often insufficient, especially when deep-seated factors like fear, resentment, social isolation, and a feeling of institutional abandonment influence individual decisions. Dave Bersoff, head of research at the institute, links this to a gradual erosion of social fabric and growing distrust among groups with differing views. Richard Edelman himself advocates for a fundamental shift in how science communicates. He argues that the traditional scientific approach, which focused solely on the “what,” is no longer enough. Instead, “In the next phase, scientists will have to talk about the ‘why’ and the ‘how’.” This means acknowledging legitimate doubts, enhancing the clarity of medical guidelines, and fostering direct, transparent communication to prevent false information from continuing to jeopardise public health decisions. Rebuilding trust requires a more human, empathetic, and holistic approach to scientific communication, one that addresses not just the facts, but the underlying anxieties and concerns of a diverse global population.