A patient arrives for an appointment with a question. They watched a video about a medication, heard a claim on a podcast or received advice from a family member. What they heard conflicts with the best available medical evidence, and now it is part of the clinical conversation.

For physicians, these moments can be challenging. It can be frustrating to spend valuable visit time correcting information you know is inaccurate—especially when the patient trusts the source that provided it.

Learning how physicians can address medical misinformation with patients involves more than replacing a wrong fact with a right one. Effective conversations begin with understanding why the information felt credible, what the patient is worried about and how the belief may affect their health decisions.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services defines health misinformation as information that is “false, inaccurate or misleading according to the best available evidence at the time.” With health information moving quickly through social media, search engines and other digital platforms, physicians are increasingly likely to encounter these claims in practice.

Approaching them with curiosity instead of confrontation can help preserve the relationship while giving patients information they need to make an informed decision.

First, find out what the patient actually believes

When a patient raises an inaccurate or unsupported claim, resist the urge to immediately launch into a correction. First, find out what they have heard and why it matters to them.

Ask where the information came from

Patient misinformation may come from a variety of sources the patient feels are completely credible, which can make refuting it a challenge. Social media, influencers, news coverage, online forums, friends or family, alternative-health sources, podcasts, search results or previous healthcare experiences may all offer information or examples of experiences that are both wildly inaccurate yet completely believable to the average person.

Asking a few neutral questions can reveal important context:

• “Where did you hear about that?”
• “What about that explanation made sense to you?”
• “What concerns you most about what you saw?”

The purpose is not to interrogate the patient or judge the source. It is to understand what made the information persuasive.

Clarify the exact claim

Avoid responding to a broad category such as “things people read online.” Determine what the patient specifically believes.

Do they think a medication causes a particular outcome? Do they believe a diagnostic test is dangerous? Are they considering an unproven treatment? Are they questioning an aspect of their diagnosis?

A precise claim is easier to address than a vague disagreement.

Look for the concern beneath the belief

A conversation that appears to be about medical misinformation may also involve fear, side effects, cost, uncertainty, distrust, previous negative experiences or a desire for greater control.

The Surgeon General’s misinformation resources note people may accept or share inaccurate information while trying to protect themselves or others or seeking explanations during periods of uncertainty.

Understanding that motivation can change the conversation.

Avoid starting with, “That’s wrong.”

Even when a physician is factually correct, a blunt correction can cause the conversation to become adversarial.

The American Medical Association (AMA) has summarized one useful communication principle as: ““Debunk the information, not the people.”

In practice, that means focusing on the claim rather than criticizing the person who believes or shared it.

Instead of saying, “That’s completely false,” consider:

“I’ve seen that claim, too. Here’s what the evidence currently shows.”

Or:

“There has been a lot of conflicting information about this. Let me explain what we know from the best available evidence.”

Avoid language that makes patients feel they must defend their intelligence or identity. Terms such as “gullible,” “ignorant,” “anti-science” or “uninformed” are unlikely to create the conditions for a productive physician-patient communication.

The goal is to make it easier—not harder—for a patient to reconsider and process the information. 

Lead with what is known

Correcting medical misinformation does not require repeating every version of the inaccurate claim. Whenever possible, center the conversation on reliable information.

A simple structure is:

What we know → why we know it → what it means for you

For example:

“What we know is this treatment has been studied in people with your condition. Here’s what those studies tell us, and here’s how that applies to the decision you’re making.”

Explain the evidence at the patient’s level

Patients usually do not need an impromptu journal club. Start with the information that matters most to their decision and explain it in understandable language.

AMA communication guidance emphasizes clarity and avoiding unnecessary medical terminology. As Melissa Harris has said in AMA coverage, “It’s about what gets heard and retained, not about what you want to say.”

Offer more detail if the patient wants it, but do not assume more statistics will automatically create more trust.

Be transparent about uncertainty

Credibility also means acknowledging the limits of current knowledge.

Distinguish between what is well established, what evidence suggests is likely, what remains under study and what is currently unsupported.

That distinction is especially important because the definition of health misinformation itself depends on the best available evidence at the time. Medical knowledge can evolve. Being transparent about legitimate uncertainty is different from treating unsupported claims as equally credible.

Explain why the source may be misleading

There will be times when a physician is essentially dealing with a medical “urban legend” Cases like this may require helping the patient assess where the information came from.

You might encourage them to consider:

• Who produced the information?
• What evidence do they cite?
• Are they selling a product or service?
• Is the argument based primarily on one person’s experience?
• Does the source promise certainty that the evidence cannot support?
• Does it accurately describe the research it references?

Anecdotes deserve particular care. Someone’s personal experience may be completely genuine, but one experience does not establish what will happen for most patients.

Clinical recommendations generally draw on evidence involving larger groups, repeated findings and consideration of both benefits and harms.

When appropriate, direct patients toward credible sources such as the CDC, NIH, FDA, specialty societies, academic medical centers, peer-reviewed research or validated patient decision aids. Do not rely on authority alone; explain what makes the evidence more dependable.

Use empathy before evidence when trust is fragile

When a patient distrusts medical information, evidence may be necessary but insufficient.

Start by acknowledging the concern without validating an inaccurate claim:

“I understand why that would worry you if you thought this medication caused that problem.”

Then reconnect the evidence to the patient’s goal:

“I know your priority is choosing the safest option. Let’s look at what we know about the benefits and risks.”

Physicians and patients who disagree about a factual claim may still share important goals: staying healthy, protecting family members, reducing symptoms, avoiding unnecessary harm or choosing the safest available treatment.

Those shared values can become a bridge back to the evidence.

Don’t overwhelm the patient with a data dump

If a patient presents several inaccurate claims at once, prioritize the one most relevant to the immediate clinical decision.

Use plain language. Introduce analogies when they genuinely clarify a difficult concept but avoid comparisons that oversimplify the evidence.

Then check for shared understanding.

You might ask:

“I want to make sure I explained this clearly. What are you taking away from what we discussed?”

That question can uncover remaining confusion that a simple “Does that make sense?” may miss.

Know when misinformation is affecting a treatment decision

Health misinformation becomes especially important when it begins to influence care.

A patient may refuse recommended treatment, stop a medication, avoid screening, decline vaccination, delay an evaluation, request an unproven intervention or pursue a potentially harmful alternative.

When that happens, return to the fundamentals: the available options, expected benefits, potential risks and reasonable alternatives.

AHRQ’s shared decision-making guidance emphasizes giving patients understandable information about their options and the evidence behind them so they can participate meaningfully in healthcare decisions.

Respect for autonomy does not require the physician to hide a clinical recommendation.

A clear statement can be:

“Based on the evidence and your situation, I recommend…”

Then explain why that’s your recommendation.

What if the patient still disagrees?

Successful communication does not always result in immediate agreement.

A useful conversation may end with the physician having provided accurate information, corrected a potentially harmful misunderstanding, explained the recommendation, answered questions and preserved enough trust for another discussion later.

When the situation is not urgent, leaving the door open may help:

“You don’t have to decide this second. If you’d like, we can revisit it after you’ve had time to review the information.”

When misinformation contributes to a consequential treatment decision or refusal, document the relevant discussion according to your organization’s policy and applicable professional requirements.

Set boundaries when misinformation becomes inappropriate behavior

Believing inaccurate information is not itself a boundary violation.

Different issues arise when a patient repeatedly demands clinically inappropriate treatment, becomes abusive or threatening or will not allow a productive conversation to occur.

Physicians can continue to correct inaccurate information while maintaining appropriate professional limits – and sometimes that’s all you can do.

A simple framework for misinformation conversations

The HEAR framework is a PracticeLink editorial framework based on the communication principles discussed above. It is not a validated clinical protocol.

H — Hear the belief
Ask what the patient heard and what concerns them about it.

E — Explore the source
Understand where the information came from and why it felt credible.

A — Answer with evidence
Lead with what is known, explain uncertainty honestly and communicate in plain language.

R — Reconnect to the patient’s goal
Tie the evidence back to what the patient wants to achieve and clarify the next healthcare decision.

Trust matters as much as the correction

Physicians cannot prevent every patient from encountering medical misinformation, but they can become a reliable source patients trust.

That means listening before correcting, communicating evidence clearly, admitting uncertainty when it exists, avoiding ridicule and keeping the discussion centered on the patient’s health.

The bottom line is patients deserve accurate information without being shamed for the misinformation they have encountered, and physicians need to be able to correct inaccurate claims without turning every clinical encounter into a debate. And ultimately, that is one fact that needs no argument.

For more guidance on communication, disagreements and challenging encounters, visit the PracticeLink Resource Center.