Edelman says “We no longer trust traditional institutions to address our health.” But Health Leaders Can Still Win that Influence Back.
This past Thursday, Edelman released their 4th annual Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health.
The verdict? We no longer trust traditional institutions to address our health.
A majority in nine of the countries surveyed said, “Institutions are actively undermining access to care.” Behind South Africa and Brazil, the US represented the third largest majority where people held that belief
Five years since the COVID-19 pandemic, people don’t feel good, and they've lost faith in traditional leaders to fix it. Meanwhile, new voices are competing with doctors and the medical establishment for trust and perceived legitimacy.
Regaining influence over people’s health decisions will take more than expertise. Edelman’s suggestion? More effective communication.
Trust is decentralized
Since 2020, trust in health journalism has been on a universal and consistent decline. And while business (53%) may be a more trusted institution than NGOs (50%) and, at the bottom, government (46%) and media (45%), people still show significant mistrust. Fifty-nine percent of respondents said, “I worry business leaders purposely mislead me on health matters by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
At the core of this mistrust is a growing fear of politics in medical science and the loss of agreed-upon facts. Edelman found this to be more consistent in places that underwent recent elections. In the US, support for global health organizations is polarized along party lines, having decreased for two-thirds of Republicans. In some cases, political beliefs have become a qualifier or a disqualifier for individuals choosing health providers.
Health self-confidence is on the rise
At the same time, health empowerment has become the norm. People see health as multidimensional but don’t feel care in all of those dimensions. So instead, they’re finding information online or on social media. When asked how capable they were of telling good health advice from bad, respondents showed confidence with a "shocking level of consistency across age groups.”
Still, young people reported the most engagement with health media. More and more, younger generations are sharing health-related news, personal health experiences, and their own health opinions. Followers hearing these voices often end up making health decisions based on uncredentialed advice. Fifty-eight percent of younger respondents admitted to making a health decision they would come to regret.
With authority dispersed, trust & influence goes local
As health influence grows increasingly decentralized, people are broadening themselves to a spectrum of sources. While “my doctor” consistently ranked the highest among trusted health advice, government leaders, healthcare CEOs and journalists were at the bottom. The second largest influences over health decisions were medical scientists and health experts, ranked equally alongside friends and family.
This may be due to a general surge in the belief that the average person who has “done their own research” can be just as knowledgeable on most health matters as a doctor. Forty-two percent of respondents would take advice from “people with similar health conditions as me,” and 21% would trust content creators with no medical training. People are increasingly likely to disregard provider advice for advice from these other sources, including among older populations. Still, younger groups aged 18 to 32 were the most likely to give heed to their influence.
Experts can regain influence with transparency & connection
There’s still time, says Edelman, for health experts to regain influence over people’s health decisions. If other voices are drowning out expert advice, then the experts need more effective communication to compete with those voices.
The researchers recommend five communications imperatives:
Relevance: For patients to see you as a legitimate health expert, 66% of respondents “want you to understand what people like me need and want.”
Frequency: People still find health information from health authorities to be the most believable, but social media influencers and podcasters are sharing information more frequently. The more people see something, the more believable it becomes. Health experts can regain influence with greater communication frequency.
Empathy and accessibility: In response to the prompt, “I get each of the following from uncredentialed voices that I do not get from healthcare providers,” the top two answers were “empathy for my situation,” and “direct experience of my issue.”
Relatability: This is particularly critical to get through to the younger age group. Researching how they communicate and share health media can offer insights into the best way to send a message they will absorb.
Proximity: People are more trusting of local sources because they exist further from the potential for politicization and polarization. Find a way to keep your messaging local and personable where influence is strongest.
Influence isn’t lost. It’s evolving. Edelman believes leaders can regain their influence over health decision-making, but it will require them to do a better job of meeting people where they are.
As we move forward into uncertainty, trust may continue to shift. But this Special Report makes one thing clear: authority can no longer be taken for granted. The path forward will depend on how well health leaders can communicate—not with louder voices, but more human ones.
