🔦🔍💡 Misinformation in women's health: patients, professionals and researchers dissect the mechanisms and propose concrete tools to address it, from the office to the neighbourhood. #healthpractices #Prevention #WomensHealth🧠📲 Fake news, social networks, “miracle” therapies: this collective white paper provides operational levers to strengthen critical thinking, literacy and reliable information markers with the women concerned. #HealthLiteracy #CommunityHealth #healthpractices
📌 This document is directly useful to professionals in prevention, public health, social medicine and to associations that face misinformation in health on a daily basis, particularly around women's health. It provides field observations (patients, social networks, women's press, online communities) and analytical frameworks from doctors, researchers, partner patients, communicators and institutions. It also offers structured pathways to strengthen literacy, pre-bunking, educational tools, regulation and co-construction with the women concerned. A local action coordinator can use it to design prevention plans, arguments and educational materials.
📜🔗LINK to the source
1. ANALYTICAL SUMMARY
Context and issues: women’s health and misinformation
The document brings together the biographies and hearings of doctors, paramedics, partner patients, communicators, social science researchers, journalists, and industry representatives to analyse misinformation and disinformation in health with a strong focus on women’s health. The contributions describe a saturated informational environment (social networks, women’s press, blogs, PSNC) where false information circulates about cancers, PCOS, endometriosis, menopause, HIV, addictions, mental health, contraception, and perinatal health. Several speakers highlight the specific vulnerability of certain audiences: young people from disadvantaged areas, women with chronic illnesses or cancers, people in precarious situations, patients with mental health issues, overseas territories. The regularly cited root causes are distrust of institutions, lack of scientific education and media literacy, perceived inadequacy of medical responses, under-representation of women in research, and constrained care time. Actors such as the Descartes Foundation, MIVILUDES, patient collectives, or communication agencies describe the structuring of conspiratorial, anti-vax, or New Age spheres, as well as forms of foreign interference and economic interests surrounding “miracle products.”
Operational contributions: levers, tools, and recommendations
Beyond the observation, the document provides a rich operational material: hearing grids, examples of initiatives (applications, workshops, webinars, patient sheets, fakedex, “apprentice-researcher” devices, heart buses), and recommendations to strengthen health literacy, mediation, and pre-bunking. Several hearings converge on the importance of a single validated health information platform or portal, sourced AI chatbots, reliability labels, and “stamps” recognisable by patients. The proposals include media and health education from primary/secondary school, initial and ongoing training for health professionals in communication and responding to misinformation, the integration of expert patients and peers into the systems, as well as targeting the “super-diffusers” of false news. The last pages summarise desired transformations (health information as a common good, recognition of female experiences, narrative creativity) and systemic recommendations to co-construct shared benchmarks, strengthen cognitive inoculation, structure partnerships, and support grassroots initiatives.
2. KEY POINTS OF THE DOCUMENT
Social networks as amplifiers of misinformation and gender inequalities
Several hearings (Adel Mebarki, Alexandra Van Ty Marpeau, Alice Bougneres, Dalila Simonian, Laurent Cordonier) describe how X/Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Telegram and WhatsApp structure informational bubbles where misinformation targeting particularly women's health (endometriosis, PCOS, fertility, pregnancy, “healthy” eating, cancer, HIV) spreads very quickly. These environments combine algorithms, a lack of sufficient moderation, aggressive marketing, and a deficit of attractive scientific content, reinforcing the vulnerability of already fragile audiences. (p.18–22, 23–29, 30–32, 43–47, 66–67)
Women's health as a privileged target of misinformation/disinformation
The hearings of Amandine Deslandes, Amélie Gesson, Emelyne Heluin, Imène Kaci, Franck Mouthon and others highlight the concentration of false information on reproductive health, pelvic pain, menopause, contraception, fertility, pregnancy and breast cancer. The historical deficit of research on the female body, diagnostic wandering, the perception of a “patriarchal medicine” and the sometimes limited responses of allopathic medicine encourage the use of costly, sometimes dangerous, unconventional therapies. (p.30–33, 53–54, 184–185)
Unconventional care practices (PSNC) and the “market” for medical fake news
The PSNC and “holistic” offers (quantum care, naturopathy, “miracle” supplements, paid coaching) are analysed as institutionalised misinformation, structured as a market targeting patients who are tired or disappointed with their care journey. Concrete cases are documented: miracle creams for psoriasis, e-book + coaching packages, unvalidated light therapy for cancer, pseudo-therapies for dermatosis, promises of healing for chronic conditions. (p.43–47, 50–51, 66–67)
Health literacy and media education as central levers for prevention
Several speakers (Alice Bougneres, David Smadja, Anne-Sophie Novel, Laurent Cordonier, Adel Mebarki) converge: without scientific, informational, and critical thinking education, ad-hoc fact-checking measures remain insufficient. The document emphasises the need for diagnostic tools for teachers, “survival guides for information”, pre-bunking workshops, media education programmes from primary school, university training for future health professionals, and strengthening a quality media ecosystem. (p.27–29, 34–37, 48–49, 66–67, 185)
Systemic recommendations and desired transformations
The end of the document describes structuring transformations: recognising women's experiences as legitimate knowledge, better funding research and information on women's health, making health information a common good, and shifting from defensive communication to a creative “narrative innovation”. The systemic recommendations aim to strengthen literacy, co-construct shared frameworks with women, professionals, institutions, and elected officials, simplify access to reliable sources, train in the use of generative AIs, and support grassroots initiatives through committed public policies. (p.184–185)
The 7 common mistakes, directly linked to misinformation in women's health, that can truly put your patients at risk.
Replacing validated care with “miracle therapies”
Stopping an effective treatment (cancer, chronic illness, contraception, HIV, mental disorders) in favour of “natural” cures, extreme fasting, “detox” supplements or unproven quantum therapies.
Consequence: delay in care, silent progression of the disease, loss of opportunity and sometimes a vital outcome at stake.
Relying on social media advice for contraception and fertility
Contraceptive decisions based on rumours (“the pill makes you sterile”, “the IUD destroys the uterus”, “after the pill you are protected for a year”, “the HPV vaccine makes you infertile”).
Consequence: unwanted pregnancies, avoidable abortions, refusal of protective vaccines (HPV), unnecessary anxiety around fertility.
Minimising or ignoring serious symptoms due to false explanations
Reassuring self-diagnosis based on a wellness account (“it’s just stress”, “it’s normal to have pain during periods”, “it’s not cancer, it’s energetic”).
Consequence: delay in diagnosis for endometriosis, cancers, cardiovascular diseases or psychiatric disorders, with worsening prognosis.
Following extreme diets and unfounded nutritional advice
Adoption of very restrictive diets, uncontrolled supplements, prolonged fasting, “hormonal detox” or “anti-cancer protocols” seen in videos, without medical supervision.
Consequence: deficiencies, eating disorders, impact on cycles, fertility, bone or immune health, worsening of existing diseases.
Allowing oneself to be influenced by conspiracy theories that undermine trust in care
Repeated exposure to narratives that present medicine as corrupt or malevolent (“Big Pharma lies”, “all doctors are bought”, “the truth is hidden from women”).
Consequence: refusal of vaccines, examinations, treatments, breakdown of the therapeutic relationship, isolation and resorting to closed or sectarian communities.
Considering PSNCs as necessarily “risk-free” because they are “natural”
Belief that what is “natural” cannot harm (essential oils, plants, supplements, energy healing) and an increase in self-medication without consulting a doctor.
Consequence: dangerous interactions with medications, toxicities, delays in care, significant expenses at the expense of other health needs.
Informing oneself only through unqualified influencers
Dependence on a few highly followed accounts that give medical advice without training or sources, sometimes with hidden conflicts of interest.
Consequence: biased view of health, anxiety-provoking over-diagnoses, trials of unvalidated practices, loss of trust when “advice” fails.
3. ACTION PATHS FOR LOCAL ACTORS
Designing health literacy and information workshops for women and young people
Drawing inspiration from the approaches of Alice Bougneres, from Square, and the recommendations on literacy to set up 2-day workshops in small groups (15–20 people) around the use of social networks, the identification of biases, the difference between correlation/causation, and manipulation signals. These workshops can target young women, mothers, or people in integration, relying on questionnaires, guided debates, and an “instruction manual” for informational survival. (p.27–29, 185)
Integrate expert patients as reliable information relays in women's health
Based on examples of partner patients (SOPK Europe, Keep A Breast, RESO-dermatology), local structures can identify, train, and promote expert patients to co-facilitate prevention actions (cancers, PCOS, endometriosis, chronic skin conditions, fertility). Their role: to testify, direct towards validated sources, participate in materials (podcasts, videos, fact sheets) and bring back the narratives circulating on networks. (p.33–34, 43–47, 184)
Produce and disseminate practical information verification sheets
By relying on the sheet already developed by RESO-dermatology and the recommendations of several stakeholders, teams can adapt/localise a sheet “How to verify health information?”: author, date, sources, potential conflict of interest, presence of a healing promise, cross-referencing sources. This sheet can be distributed in waiting rooms, in workshops, on the websites of the structures, or integrated into ETP pathways. (p.43–47, 185)
Train teams (professionals and volunteers) to respond to misinformation on a daily basis
Drawing inspiration from No Fake Med, the Descartes Foundation, hearings of doctors and communicators, organise internal sessions to learn to identify, listen to, and address erroneous beliefs without judgement, “knowing how to say I don’t know” and relying on authoritative resources. Objective: to move from a defensive reaction to a pre-bunking approach in consultations, workshops, or social interviews, particularly in highly exposed areas (perinatality, oncology, mental health, HIV, addictions). (p.50–51, 48–49, 66–67)
Build or join a local network for monitoring and mediation in women’s health
Based on examples from FemTech Connect, associative collectives, heart buses, or described local initiatives, a territorial actor can contribute to a monitoring network (identifying problematic content, raising weak signals) and mediation (meetings between “elites” and the public, debates, hackathons, campaigns). This network can pool resources, spokespersons, educational materials, and links with local media to strengthen the reliable “first contact” on women’s health issues. (p.30–32, 52–54, 72, 184–185)
4. ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
🔍➕ For more information, see the articles referenced by "Health Practices" on the topic of literacy ➡️🔗 https://www.pratiquesensante.com/litteratie and on women’s health ➡️🔗https://www.pratiquesensante.com/blog/tag/femmes-85
High Authority of Health – “Sex, gender and health: integrating sex and gender to improve practices” (updated 2023)
Methodological guide to integrating sex and gender into health policies and practices, complementary to analyses on the under-consideration of the female body. https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3223570/fr/sexe-genre-et-sante-rapport-d-analyse-prospective-2020
Descartes Foundation – “Information and health” (2023)
Quantitative and qualitative study on the beliefs and behaviours of the French regarding health information, very close to the work cited by Laurent Cordonier and Adel Mebarki. https://www.fondationdescartes.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Information_sante_2023.pdf
WHO Europe – "Health literacy development for the prevention and control of noncommunicable diseases" (2023)
Operational guide on the development of health literacy, with transferable action points to the themes of misinformation and women's health. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789240055353
5. FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ)
How can this document help me build a local project on women's health?
The document offers detailed findings, examples of initiatives (apps, heart buses, workshops, digital clubs, webinars, fakedex, patient sheets) and recommendations for structuring diagnostics, partnerships, and prevention actions. It allows for targeting themes (breast cancer, PCOS, endometriosis, perinatal health, mental health, dermatology) and choosing appropriate levers (expert patients, media education, mobile devices, creative campaigns). (p.30–34, 43–48, 53–54, 184–185)
Which audiences are identified as the most vulnerable to misinformation?
Notably mentioned are young people from disadvantaged neighbourhoods, women with chronic illnesses (dermatoses, PCOS, endometriosis), oncology patients, people with mental health issues, women in perinatality, as well as populations from overseas territories. Vulnerability is due to a combination of factors: lack of suitable care offerings, taboos, intensive exposure to networks, distrust of institutions, emotional overload, and targeted marketing. (p.27–29, 30–33, 43–45, 48–49, 53–54)
What concrete role do expert patients and associations play in the fight against misinformation?
Expert patients (SOPK Europe, Keep A Breast, RESO-dermatology) and associations play a key role in mediation, testimony, co-construction of messages, content production (podcasts, videos, fact sheets) and identifying circulating narratives. They contribute to reducing therapeutic wandering, restoring trust in the healthcare system, reporting abuses (paid coaching, miracle creams, promises of healing) and co-designing campaigns that are closer to lived realities. (p.33–34, 43–47, 184)
How to approach unconventional care practices without breaking the trust relationship?
Several hearings advocate for a nuanced position: recognising the importance of lived experience, the need for listening and complementary approaches, while reminding of the limits of evidence and the risks of promises of healing. The challenge is to allow the patient to talk about what they have tried or considered, to help sort information with simple criteria, to revalue proven treatments and to point out warning signals (high costs, lack of sources, guilt-inducing arguments). (p.41–47, 50–51, 66–67)
What are the priorities in media and health education according to the document?
The priorities include media and health education from primary school or secondary school, initial training for teachers and health students, the provision of diagnostic tools and updated content banks, as well as the integration of the scientific method into the programmes. It is also recommended to develop pre-bunking strategies (cognitive inoculation), to offer adapted informational regimes, and to train credible scientific influencers on social networks. (p.27–29, 34–37, 48–49, 66–67, 185)
Does the document propose avenues for regulation and legal framework?
Yes, it mentions the need to better apply existing frameworks (Digital Services Act, 1881 law, regulation of influences, role of the Order, ARCOM) and to fill certain legal gaps around unfounded healing promises. Several speakers mention the “deplatforming” of super-disseminators, the creation of a “police for therapeutic fake news,” and the certification/stamping of reliable sources; but they also highlight the current limitations of justice and platform moderation. (p.21–22, 45–47, 48–49, 66–67)
How can this document be used in training for professionals or field volunteers?
It can be used as a basis for practical cases by selecting 3–4 representative hearings (youth, cancers, perinatality, dermatology, mental health) to work on causes, responses, and tools. It also allows for co-constructing a local mapping of information sources, misinformation risks, reliable relays, and launching a project work on the creation of tools (sheets, workshops, networks of expert patients). (p.17–22, 27–29, 33–34, 43–48, 184–185)
6. REWRITING IN EASY TO READ LANGUAGE
EASY TO READ TITLE
Talking about women’s health information and false information
EASY TO READ SUMMARY – Context
Many women receive health information on the internet.
Often, this information is false or incomplete.
This mainly concerns pregnancy, pain, periods, cancer, skin.
Social media and some magazines amplify this false information.
Women seek simple and quick answers for their health.
They do not always find doctors who explain clearly.
FALC Summary – What the document brings
Doctors, patients and researchers share what they see.
They explain how to spot false health information.
They provide ideas for workshops and simple tools.
They propose training professionals and citizens in critical thinking.
They call for more research on women's bodies.
They want health information to be clear, reliable and close to women's lives.
Key points FALC
Social media moves very quickly
False information spreads faster than true information.
TikTok, Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp play a big role.
Young people and women are very exposed to it.
Women's health is highly targeted
There is a lot of false information about periods, pregnancy, menopause, pain.
“Miracle” products are sold without proof.
Women pay dearly for ineffective treatments.
“Alternative” treatments are not always safe
Some approaches can help with comfort.
Others promise to cure without proof.
Some people take advantage of women's suffering.
Learning to read health information is essential
It is important to learn to verify who is speaking, why, and where the information comes from.
Simple fact sheets can help ask the right questions.
Schools and health training must address these topics.
Everyone must act
Patients, professionals, associations and public authorities have a role.
Clear benchmarks must be created: reliable sites, labels, resource persons.
The objective is for every woman to be able to make informed choices about her health.
7. CROSS-ANALYSIS — VALUES OF HEALTH PRACTICES
Literacy: The document promotes suitable understanding tools (fact sheets, workshops, informational frameworks, pre-bunking) for different levels of information mastery.
Empowerment: Beneficiaries, particularly women and expert patients, are involved as co-designers, witnesses and actors in the dissemination of reliable information.
Participation: Co-construction mechanisms are described, via collectives, round tables, heart buses, digital clubs, apprentice researchers and elite-young mediations.
Community health: The collective dimension is present, with a vision of health information as a common good and actions thought out at the community level (neighbourhoods, associations, territories).
Ethics: The document identifies cultural and social biases (medical patriarchy, invisibilisation of women, economic pressures) and proposes avenues for regulation and transparency.
Human rights: The approach emphasises equitable access to reliable information, taking into account social and cultural diversities, and protecting vulnerable individuals from abuses.
Intersectorality: Partnerships are recommended between health, education, media, digital, research, associations, regulatory authorities and economic actors.
Partnership: Models of collaboration are described between patients, healthcare professionals, institutions, foundations, industry, and communicators, in a logic of co-responsibility.
Fight against discrimination: The document mentions gender, territorial, and class discrimination and values non-judgment, the diversity of experiences, and the recognition of women's experiential knowledge.
8. EVALUATION OF THE RELIABILITY OF THE RESOURCE
Scientific relevance: The hearings are based on recognised work (Descartes Foundation, COCONEL studies, Cambridge, MIVILUDES, WHO, HAS, Inserm research, etc.), with citations from scientific articles and large-scale studies. The format of 'hearings' introduces a degree of subjectivity, but the discourses are consistent with the state of knowledge on misinformation, PSNC, gender, and health fake news.
Operational relevance: The resource is very operational for the field: numerous concrete examples, existing tools, feedback, targeted recommendations on education, communication, regulation, and organisation of care. It is suitable for designing training, local projects, and advocacy, taking into account the realities of the audiences and the constraints of professionals.