Today, the public increasingly relies on social media as a source of information, including for health-related matters. As a primary reference for seeking information, social media offers a wide range of content from dietary tips and claims about the efficacy of medicines and herbal remedies to advice on treating chronic diseases; all available within seconds. Unfortunately, health information circulating on social media does not always align with standard clinical guidelines. Therefore, the public is required to exercise caution and judgment when using health information on social media.
Professor Zullies Ikawati of the Faculty of Pharmacy, Universitas Gadjah Mada (Pharmacy UGM), acknowledged that behind the convenience of accessing information lies a serious problem, as not all health information on social media is accurate, and some may even be harmful.
The World Health Organization (WHO), since the COVID-19 pandemic, has introduced the term “infodemic”, referring to an overwhelming flood of information mixed with facts, opinions, and hoaxes, making it difficult for the public to distinguish between what is accurate and what is misleading.
“This can certainly confuse, encourage risky behavior, and erode trust in health authorities. This phenomenon did not stop after the pandemic subsided; instead, it continues across various everyday health issues, from ‘miracle’ medicines to alternative therapies with no scientific basis,” Professor Ikawati said at Pharmacy UGM on Wednesday (Jan. 14).
She further revealed that the proportion of misleading health information on social media is currently quite high, particularly on topics related to medicines, vaccines, and chronic diseases. Citing various studies, she noted that health misinformation on social media ranks high for certain issues.
As proof of the claim, on issues related to cigarettes and related products, as well as certain medications, some studies have found that misinformation posts can reach up to 87 percent; vaccine-related misinformation is around 43 percent; disease-related content (including cancer and pandemics) is around 40 percent; and medical procedures or therapies are around 30 percent.
These data indicate that several topic areas are indeed “high-risk” for unbalanced or non-evidence-based claims.
“On vaccine issues, for instance, nearly half of the content on some platforms contains misinformation or unbalanced narratives. This situation is exacerbated by social media algorithms that tend to amplify sensational, emotional content promising instant results. Such content is certainly not accurate or evidence-based,” she explained.
Furthermore, Professor Ikawati noted that this issue in Indonesia is also reflected in government data on the handling of hoaxes. The Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs records thousands of hoax incidents every year, with health among the most frequently reported categories.
Signals of this problem are evident in the ministry’s hoax-handling data, which show that by the end of 2023, the ministry had addressed 12,547 hoax issues, with health-related hoaxes accounting for 2,357 cases.
Despite being misleading, health issues are often exploited because they easily trigger emotions. Fearful people may panic and hope for a quick recovery, making such content easily go viral.
From the perspective of health products, Professor Ikawati acknowledged that the challenge is becoming increasingly complex, as health information is often intertwined with promotion.
This has led the National Agency of Drug and Food Control (BPOM) to regularly release supervision results related to traditional medicines and supplements that fail to meet safety and quality standards, including findings from the December 2023 to January 2024 period.
Another finding came from BPOM, which discovered 79,015 illegal drugs and food items on e-commerce platforms during the first semester of 2025.
Such data are important for public understanding, as digital content is not merely about “information” but often intersects with marketing and the circulation of problematic products.
“These facts underscore that health information in the digital space cannot be viewed as neutral. It often intersects with commercial interests. So, what can the public do? The key lies in health literacy and digital literacy. Accurate health information generally has clear characteristics,” she stated.
In addition to having identifiable sources, reliable health information is delivered by competent parties, uses proportional language, and presents benefits and risks in a balanced manner.
Conversely, the public should be cautious of certain claims, information that sounds overly definitive, promises instant cures, or states that a product is “safe for everyone” without exception.
“What is important to understand is that in the world of health, there is almost no intervention that is entirely risk-free. This is something that must be clearly understood,” the professor emphasized.
So how can the public assess the accuracy of health information on social media without becoming an “expert”?
According to Professor Ikawati, a practical approach is to apply simple filters before trusting and sharing information. One crucial step is checking the source, including the clarity of identity, competence, and affiliation.
Credible content is usually not anonymous and does not conceal conflicts of interest. People should also be wary of phrases such as “guaranteed,” “instant,” “100% safe,” “no side effects,” or “doctors don’t want you to know.”
“In health science, benefits almost always come with conditions. Testimonials may reflect personal experiences, but they are not evidence of effectiveness for everyone. It is important to check the context, as accurate health information usually explains who it applies to, when it should not be used, the associated risks, and when to see a doctor or go to the emergency room. Content that only highlights benefits while concealing risks deserves suspicion,” she elaborated.
Professor Ikawati also explained that more trustworthy health content is generally consistent, uses proportional and non-sensational language, explains both benefits and risks, does not encourage excessive self-diagnosis, and directs people to seek consultation when experiencing certain conditions, such as pregnancy, childhood, old age, comorbidities, or concurrent medication use.
She noted that regulations are actually already in place. Promotion and information related to medicines and health products are regulated by BPOM, while public health communication falls under the policy domain of the Ministry of Health of the Republic of Indonesia.
However, regulations alone are not sufficient; they must be balanced with public awareness and the responsibility of content creators, as social media is open and allows anyone to speak, even though not everyone has the competence to provide health advice.
In addressing this issue, Professor Ikawati believes that health professionals have a strategic role to play. Rather than distancing themselves from social media, doctors, pharmacists, and academics should actively engage to fill the information space with accurate, accessible, and empathetic education.
Professor Ikawati emphasizes that the presence of health professionals on social media is not intended to replace clinical consultations, but to help the public understand the limits of digital information and recognize when to seek professional help.
This means that health professionals need to become active, communicative, and empathetic sources of information.
“Their role is not merely to ‘debunk’ misinformation, but to fill information gaps with explanations that are easy to understand. In this way, social media should neither be treated as an enemy nor as the sole reference for truth. It is merely a tool whose benefits or harms are largely determined by how we use it. In matters of health, caution is not a sign of fear, but a form of responsibility to oneself and to others,” she concluded.
Author: Agung Nugroho
Illustration: VenueMagz.com
Post-editor: Rajendra Arya