2024/12/06 by Nathalie Sonnac, David M. Smadja · 1 voice · 5 citations
Medicine · Neuroscience · Nursing · Social Sciences · #Democracy #Disinformation #Internet privacy #Law #Medicine #Misinformation and Its Impacts #Nursing #Politics #Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment #Public health #Social media #Vaccine Coverage and Hesitancy #Value (mathematics)
paper · doi:10.1093/jphsr/rmaf005
published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Health Services Research 16(1) (Oxford University Press)
openalex publication_date 2024/12/06 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/29
The COVID-19 pandemic revealed flaws in global health systems and a parallel crisis: the spread of medical misinformation (unintentional falsehoods) and disinformation (deliberate deception) [1]. Consequences of mis- and disinformation have both their direct and indirect impacts [2]. Direct consequences include increased COVID-19 deaths due to vaccine hesitancy and rejection of preventive measures. The World Health Organization (WHO) reported that COVID-19 vaccines have saved at least 1.4 million lives within the European Region. This powerful statistic highlights the life-saving impact of vaccination campaigns and underscores the direct correlation between increased vaccination rates and a significant reduction in mortality. Indirect consequences can be measured with the erosion of public trust in scientific institutions and long-term societal polarization inducing mis- and disinformation’s broader effects. Public trust in health and media institutions has sharply declined due to recent events, eroding confidence in their credibility. Once seen as reliable authorities, these institutions faced scrutiny during the pandemic. A 2021 survey in France found over half of respondents distrusted health media, citing sensationalism and perceived political or financial biases. The scientific community’s credibility suffered as mixed messaging and contradictions in health guidelines fueled skepticism, a culmination of long-standing challenges highlighted in a recent Lancet editorial [1]. The rise of digital platforms has fragmented information sources, diminishing traditional media’s influence and enabling conspiracy theories about COVID-19, such as vaccine-related population control claims, to flourish. This crisis of trust was worsened by political figures and influencers spreading unverified claims, such as hydroxychloroquine as a miracle cure, amplified by media and social platforms. These narratives often outpaced efforts by public health officials to disseminate accurate information, contributing to widespread confusion and hesitancy. The media’s role during the pandemic was a double-edged sword, as it not only sensationalized health issues and amplified public fear but also contributed to eroding trust in the medical profession by overemphasizing controversies and uncertainties, ultimately undermining confidence in science-based healthcare. For example, during the COVID-19 pandemic, public claims and media reports suggested that patients were left to die in emergency departments due to overwhelmed healthcare systems, fueling fear and raising concerns about medical triage practices in particular for Life-Sustaining Therapy (LST) criteria. Decisions were grounded in legal frameworks such as France’s Claeys–Léonetti Law and medical evidence. Retrospective research in LST during the first wave of COVID outbreack demonstrated that triage prioritized patients had higher organ failure biomarkers [3].