These days, news comes at us so quickly and from so many different sources, it’s tough to know if the information is accurate — including reports on health. That’s why researchers from the University of Kansas decided to try to find the best way to help people sort fact from fiction when it comes to health information.

They began their research by sharing one of eight different versions of a false health news story about vitamin B17 with more than 750 study participants. All the versions, posted on social media, claimed that a deficiency of vitamin B17 could cause cancer — even though, unbeknownst to the participants, there is no such thing as vitamin B17.

Surprisingly, people who were very interested in health topics were more likely to share the information, whether it was believable or not.

Each version presented the information on vitamin B17 differently. One included a doctor’s byline with a description of her medical credentials, while another described the author as a mother of two with a background in creative writing. Some of the versions used casual language, while others were written in a professional journalistic style. In addition, some of the versions were flagged as “unverified” or “suspicious.”

“We wanted to test two skills that are often employed in media literacy training programs around the world, author credentials and writing style, as well as flagging,” explained Hong Tien Vu, an assistant professor in the Department of Journalism and Mass Communication and a co-author of the study along with Yvonnes Chen, an associate professor in the same department.

The researchers found that participants who were more knowledgeable about social media, or were more tech savvy, were better able to evaluate the information and were less likely to share the article. Surprisingly, people who were very interested in health topics were more likely to share the information, whether it was believable or not.

The results also showed that an author’s credentials or writing style didn’t affect whether the story was perceived as true or not. What mattered most? When the false article was flagged. This result led the study’s authors, Vu and Chen, to conclude that tech companies have a strong responsibility to label false or unverified content.

Since most of us are susceptible to falling for false information, especially when it appears to confirm what we already believe to be true, being skeptical is the best first step to figuring out what’s factual.

Unfortunately, flagging content for accuracy is not consistent on most social media outlets, so how can you better tell if a health report is based on research? The Centers for Disease Control suggests asking these questions:

  • Where was the research published? Make sure it comes from a credible, peer-reviewed journal. If you’re not sure, ask your librarian or your health care professional if the source is reputable.

  • How does the new information fit with what is already known? Each credible research study contributes to what already exists in a body of knowledge. It doesn’t come out of nowhere.

  • How does funding influence the research? The source of funding for a research project may bias the reporting results if the funders have anything to gain by the results.

    • Since most of us are susceptible to falling for false information, especially when it appears to confirm what we already believe to be true, being skeptical is the best first step to figuring out what’s factual.

    It also helps to know the difference between scientific claims for which there is no research, and scientific information that is incomplete and evolving. They are not the equal.

    As the scientific community’s progress in understanding the SARS-CoV-2 virus responsible for the COVID-19 current pandemic makes clear, scientific information is always evolving. Scientific studies build on each other, testing the findings of previous research and either replicating those findings or disproving or refining them. This is the basis of the scientific method.

    The fact that information is later revised does not make it false, even if it proves erroneous. When a lab result is found not to hold up over time in clinical trials, this is not fake information.

    As a consumer of health information take the time to cross-check the stories you see, particularly if they have no clear or reputable source. Medical journals, media reports citing research are likely to be more reliable than someone’s unsourced secondhand post on social media.

    That means you should check this article, too. The University of Kansas study has been reviewed and accepted for presentation at the upcoming International Communication Association Conference. It has not yet been published in a peer-reviewed journal, so its findings should be viewed as preliminary.