Facts Over Fiction: How Psychologists Can Confront and Combat Mental Health Misinformation

The beginning of the 21st century marked a rapid rise in digital and social media use. Social media platforms have become increasingly integral in patients’ medical decision making, owing to their accessibility and convenience. Unfortunately, this ease of access has also fueled the spread of misinformation.

Take attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) as an example: in 2021, a study reviewing the top videos under the hashtag #adhd on TikTok found that 52% contained misleading information (Yeung et al., 2021). In 2025, another study found that 51% of the top 100 ADHD videos had misleading information, showing no significant improvement despite TikTok’s efforts to curb inaccuracies (Karasavva et al., 2025). Similarly, 92% of the top videos using #adhdtest contained misleading content (Verma & Sinha, 2025). These findings are not unique to ADHD. Research has also shown low reliability and quality of information related to gender-affirming surgeries (Song et al., 2022). In 2024, my research team reviewed 251 TikTok videos on gender-affirming medical care and found that 20% contained misinformation. Such statistics highlight a persistent and concerning problem across multiple areas of health and mental health.

Evidence-based Approaches to Combating Misinformation

Psychologists are uniquely positioned to help address this growing issue. Evidence-based approaches such as pre-bunking, debunking, and nudging have shown promise at reducing misinformation (Abrams, 2024). Pre-bunking is when we pre-emptively refute common myths to make individuals more aware when they become exposed to misinformation (e.g., Traberg et al., 2022). Debunking is the act of correcting misinformation after the fact (e.g., Paynter et al., 2019). Nudging is when pop-up or disclaimer messages are displayed when misinformation is present in an online content (e.g., Hwang & Lee, 2025). These methods can be integrated into clinical practice, patient education, and community outreach.

Health Literacy as a Preventive Measure

Enhancing health literacy is a critical form of pre-bunking. Psychologists could highlight the importance of health literacy and advocate for more funding in this area. Ensuring patients can interpret and apply health information improves their ability to identify misinformation when it is encountered. Psychologists can use both standardized health literacy measures and discussion or observational approaches to better understand our patients’ health literacy (Haun et al., 2014). Once we understand our patients’ health literacy, we can engage in practices that make information about mental health accessible, understandable, and actionable. These practices include improving patients’ cognitive and communication skills to improve their access to, and ability to act on, health information (Haeri-Mehrizi et al., 2024). However, psychologists must understand that interpretation and reactions to information are not necessarily logical. Mental health misinformation in the media is often laden with anecdotal and emotional information, and our patients may react emotionally. Psychologists can encourage patients to have discussions about their emotional reactions and why the entity posting the content may have been motivated to do so (Wojtowicz, 2020). Having these types of discussions can reduce the likelihood that patients will let emotionally laden misinformation influence their behavior and encourage them to scrutinize the motives of those sharing any information in the future. Promoting health literacy through discussion and reducing misinformation and sensationalized ideas related to mental health can also assist with decreasing stigma attached to mental health disorders and the process of seeking treatment.

Clinical Impact of Misinformation

Many patients enter the clinical setting with ideas about mental health diagnoses, assessment, and therapeutic intervention, and these ideas may have been influenced by misinformation encountered online. This misinformation can pose a threat to the clinical setting and patient outcomes, including decreasing trust in providers (Schiavo, 2025). Decreased trust ultimately harms the therapeutic relationship and the efficacy of assessments and interventions provided. Psychologists can debunk misinformation by establishing an openness to discussing misinformation in sessions. A balance of educating patients about misinformation and providing corrective education in a warm but decisive manner can both acknowledge the information patients present with but correct any misconceptions that may be harmful to their understanding and ability to act on health information. Psychologists can guide patients through evaluating the credibility of their sources, differentiating between anecdotal information and scientific evidence. Psychologists can also provide reliable sources of information for patients to investigate further. For example, when writing assessment reports or providing post-therapy session instructions, psychologists should offer resources with evidence-based health information that will support the patient’s understanding of their diagnosis as well as the supported interventions. Having “go to” handouts and psychoeducational material related to common misconceptions can aid psychologists in quickly and efficiently combating mental health misinformation.

Communicating Without Reactance

Tone matters. Studies show that healthcare providers often dismiss and vilify adolescents’ and young adults’ social media use (Blackwell et al. 2024). Overly moralistic or rigid approaches can provoke psychological reactance, as illustrated by the failure of the Drug Abuse Resistance Education program (DARE) (Rosenbaum, 2007; Grandpre et al., 2003). Social media education often dwells on the negative effects and horrifying anecdotes, which does little to prevent risky use as proven by previous studies investigating reactance inducing fear-based tactics (Stolow et al., 2020). Patients, especially those from marginalized groups, may perceive our dismissive attitudes as patronizing or disempowering. A more effective approach acknowledges both the risks and benefits of social media. For many, these platforms provide validation, community, and empowerment. Psychologists should recognize and support these positive aspects while employing evidence-based techniques like pre-bunking and debunking appropriately.

Psychologists on Social Media

A study in 2025 found young adults with ADHD are receptive to content created by psychologists with expertise in ADHD (Karasavva et al., 2025). The absence of easily accessible and relatable information pushes our patients to turn to less reliable sources. Therefore, it is important for psychologists to get involved with social media, as well. We see examples of medical providers engaging on social media. One notable personality in this space is Dr. Mikhail Varshavski (aka. Doctor Mike) a board-certified Family Medicine physician. He makes content about various healthcare topics but can often be found calling out misinformation shared on social media and traditional media outlets. World-renowned ADHD researcher and board-certified neuropsychologist, Dr. Russel Barkley, hosts a YouTube channel where he does weekly research reviews and posts videos about various ADHD topics. Dr. Barkley also makes videos that challenge misinformation related to ADHD and has garnered a significant following. Psychologists with strengths in content creation can play a similar role in disseminating accurate, engaging, and trustworthy information. In addition, board certification could be a method for psychologists to establish expertise within a specific subject area and credibility with social media users.

Advocacy Beyond the Clinic

Not all our effort needs to be limited to the confines of our office or local community. Psychologists skilled in advocacy can also direct efforts toward policy and industry change. Legislative advocacy may push for stricter regulation of misinformation on social media. Legislation can be used to set minimum standards and expectations for social media companies to reduce the spread of misinformation. At the same time, direct collaboration with social media companies can yield meaningful results, as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic when platforms scaled up moderation efforts. Although balancing free speech with content moderation remains a challenge, advocacy at each level can yield productive results.

Conclusion

Due to the growing popularity of social media platforms, vast amounts of information can be disseminated quickly and without safeguards against misinformation. Mental health misinformation presents significant challenges to clinical practice, public trust, and patient outcomes. Psychologists can respond by strengthening health literacy, debunking misconceptions, engaging patients in collaborative discussions, producing reliable content, and advocating for systemic change. Whether through clinical work, content creation, or legislative efforts, psychologists have diverse avenues through which to reduce the harm of misinformation and promote accurate, stigma-reducing mental health knowledge.