Misinformation about Crohn’s disease is rife on social media, but unqualified influencers are not the only ones to blame, according to an analysis of the most popular posts on Instagram.

US researchers have put 78 top-viewed reels with the hashtag #crohns under the microscope, finding 83% of posts were made by lay creators, with most of “moderate” quality.

But among the 17 per cent of videos made by qualified health professionals, there was no guarantee these were any better at guiding patients towards evidence-based care.

“Their content was not associated with greater factual accuracy or benefit compared to lay individuals,” Massachusetts General Hospital resident Dr Sankirth Madabhushi and colleagues wrote in Plos One [link here].

“In fact, 42% of all harmful or misleading videos were created by medical professionals.”

The authors were keen to stress that the results did not paint all clinicians with the same brush. But the research did suggest a need for extra scrutiny regarding content aimed at Crohn’s patients online.

Dr Sankirth Madabhushi.

“Our findings underscore the need for clearer guidelines for health communication on social media and updated tools to assess online health information in the age of short-form video platforms.”

The majority of the videos came from creators without a medical background, but across the whole group of 78 videos the research team found examples of misinformation which were clinically significant.

This included misrepresenting conditions like IBD and irritable bowel syndrome as interchangeable with Crohn’s, referencing “gut microbiome imbalances” as a reason for gastrointestinal symptoms, and recommending therapies not approved by the FDA.

In Australia, clinicians’ social media use is regulated by the Health Practitioner Regulation National Law, and posts that include false or misleading information may catch the attention of Ahpra [link here].

But social media regulation is not consistent across borders, meaning misleading information about conditions like Crohn’s can reach Australian patients even if created in the US.

The paper didn’t explicitly name the specialties involved, though chiropractors were implied in a few cases given the authors’ notes that certain diagnostic practices fell outside chiropractic scope. Medical professionals responsible for harmful content appeared to have leaned towards functional or integrative medicine approaches, but the paper didn’t elaborate further on their specific credentials.

In their analysis, the authors highlighted the need for new frameworks to check the quality and accuracy of health information posted on social media.

“There may be potential for social media platforms to improve credibility and quality measures for health content, potentially with the assistance of artificial intelligence, to guide users toward trustworthy content,” they suggested.

“In the future, this may inform platform algorithms, as suggested by recent literature on the need for enhanced regulation and quality control in digital health communication.”