Impact of Exposure to Health Misinformation on Belief in Health Misinformation: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Health authorities have labeled health misinformation a major global health threat and academic scholars consider exposure to health misinformation a barrier to an individual's informed decision-making. However, quantitative evaluations of the persuasive impact of exposure to health misinformation produced mixed results. This study uses a meta-analytic approach to analyze the average impact of health misinformation across studies and explore potential moderators of effect size. The analysis includes randomized controlled trials that compare the impact of exposure to health misinformation on individuals' belief in misinformation with a neutral control group. The meta-analysis examined 31 effect sizes (<i>N</i> = 18,115) from 14 studies that showed that exposure to health misinformation, on average, increases individuals' belief in misinformation, <i>g</i> = 0.24, 95% Confidence Interval [0.10, 0.38]. Moderator analyses revealed that exposure to longer health misinformation was associated with stronger effects, <i>g</i> = 0.41, 95% CI [0.27, 0.55], than exposure to shorter statements, <i>g</i> = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.20]. The effect size estimates can support fact-checkers in identifying potentially highly persuasive misinformation and can support researchers in conducting power-analyses and identifying reasonable smallest effect sizes of interest when studying the impact of health misinformation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Health Communication
Published
2025-07-24
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2025.2536772
Citations
4
Primary Topic
Misinformation and Its Impacts
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
16.81
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Impact of Exposure to Health Misinformation on Belief in Health Misinformation: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Philipp Schmid, Hannah Bauer
4 citations
Health Communication
Misinformation and Its Impacts
16.81
article

Impact of Exposure to Health Misinformation on Belief in Health Misinformation: A Meta-Analysis of RCTs

Philipp Schmid, Hannah Bauer
article en
4 citations

Abstract

Health authorities have labeled health misinformation a major global health threat and academic scholars consider exposure to health misinformation a barrier to an individual's informed decision-making. However, quantitative evaluations of the persuasive impact of exposure to health misinformation produced mixed results. This study uses a meta-analytic approach to analyze the average impact of health misinformation across studies and explore potential moderators of effect size. The analysis includes randomized controlled trials that compare the impact of exposure to health misinformation on individuals' belief in misinformation with a neutral control group. The meta-analysis examined 31 effect sizes (<i>N</i> = 18,115) from 14 studies that showed that exposure to health misinformation, on average, increases individuals' belief in misinformation, <i>g</i> = 0.24, 95% Confidence Interval [0.10, 0.38]. Moderator analyses revealed that exposure to longer health misinformation was associated with stronger effects, <i>g</i> = 0.41, 95% CI [0.27, 0.55], than exposure to shorter statements, <i>g</i> = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.08, 0.20]. The effect size estimates can support fact-checkers in identifying potentially highly persuasive misinformation and can support researchers in conducting power-analyses and identifying reasonable smallest effect sizes of interest when studying the impact of health misinformation.

Health Communication
Radboud University Nijmegen (NL), University of Erfurt (DE), Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE), Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine (DE)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 1%
Misinformation and Its Impacts
16.81
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.