The assumptions that health communicators have relied on for decades are spectacularly wrong. Doubts about nutrition, vaccination and safety recommendations are no longer a side issue. They are not based on a single ideology or a lack of education, and do not result from mistrust of doctors or experts. In fact, our recent Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report 2026: Trust and Health, based on a survey of 16,000 respondents in 16 countries, finds that a staggering 70% believe at least one of six controversial health claims about food and vaccines, and medication to be true. Understanding the worldview and concerns of the public is everything. Healthcare CEOs and communicators must embrace this radical new reality.
Health policy beliefs are controversial around the world and are highest in developing countries India (89%) and South Africa (88%) and lowest in Japan, Canada and the USA (50-61%). The divisive health beliefs apply equally to all levels of education (university).–completed versus non-university–Gradd) and are more pronounced among young people (79% aged 18 to 34) and right-leaning voters (78%), although the majority are among those aged 55 and over (60%) and left-leaning voters (64%). Strikingly, only a slim majority (52%) think it is wrong that the risks of vaccinating children outweigh the benefits, while just over a third (36%) of respondents think it is wrong that adding fluoride to drinking water is harmful – a public health staple in many Anglophone countries since the 1960s.
The one-year decline in confidence (-10 points to 51%) in people’s ability to make informed health decisions for themselves and their families is staggering. From China to the United Arab Emirates to Mexico, the majority of people feel their country is divided on key health issues, potentially leading to a profound loss of trust in the health system. In the eyes of many, artificial intelligence has already replaced medical expertise; Doctors are competing with AI, colleagues, friends, and other unqualified sources to influence healthcare decisions.
More information alone is not a solution. Those with more divisive health beliefs are actually more immersed in information, with an average of two-thirds saying they frequently consume health news or consult AI platforms for answers – double or triple the engagement of those who don’t hold divisive claims. They are almost three times more likely to read health news stories with different political leanings. The data reveals deep confusion: They are also more likely to receive mixed advice from accredited and non-accredited voices, and it follows that they are three times more likely to have ignored medical advice from health care providers in the past year and instead sought advice from friends, family or social media than those who don’t believe divisive health statements. This isn’t a story about too little – it’s about too much information without proper context.
Science needs a reset to adapt to this unstable world of trust and offer a new offering to patients and healthcare providers. To date, institutional scholarship has focused exclusively on WHAT, expressed through top-down communication from recognized authority figures. This is no longer enough for those whose COVID-19 ordeal has left them skeptical of global institutions, experts and governments. The HOW needs to be explained in simple terms, using data visualizations and with greater transparency about clinical trial processes. The WHY requires recognition of benefits versus side effects and the relative value of the innovation versus costs.
Here is a five-point communications strategy for healthcare executives:
1. Institutions and providers must act equally as guides and not as advocates.
2. Trust must be brokered between groups with differing views to advance common goals without having to achieve unanimity.
3. Recognize that we don’t have all the answers. This transparency is actually built into the scientific method.
4. Frequency, frequency, frequency. People need to listen—and be heard – several times before they think about a health recommendation.
5. Surround sound. Leverage a broader circle of trust, appreciation from friends and family, and patient advocacy groups alongside medical experts.
It is time for science to go on the offensive, recognize the futility of facts alone, and engage the public as a partner in a better life.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com comments are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Assets.
