Mental health misinformation in the era of social media: A public health crisis
By Bossa Health
The ubiquity of social media has transformed it from a means of social interaction into a primary source of information, including health-related content. As global internet access increases, the boundaries between expert knowledge and personal opinion blur. Platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter) are now commonly used by individuals seeking mental health advice. While the accessibility of these platforms may seem advantageous, their largely unregulated nature poses significant risks when it comes to the dissemination of misinformation.
​
The appeal of social media as an information source lies in its immediacy, brevity, and omnipresence. Millions of users spend hours per day consuming short-form videos and posts, often trusting what they see, especially when the content is emotionally resonant or appears relatable. However, this environment is fertile ground for the widespread sharing of unverified, incorrect information. Because algorithms prioritise engagement over accuracy, misleading content can spread far more rapidly than rigorously vetted material. The lack of mandatory fact-checking mechanisms makes it easier for individuals — whether driven by financial incentives or personal motivations — to present unvalidated opinions or personal experiences as universal truths.
​
The notion that combating misinformation restricts freedom of speech is a persistent misconception. With over five billion users worldwide, social media misinformation constitutes a public health issue, not a matter of individual discretion alone. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the tangible consequences of misinformation, with baseless claims, such as the common narrative that vaccines cause autism, contributing to vaccine hesitancy and undermining public health responses. These consequences underscore the urgent need for responsible communication, especially in the mental health domain, where stigma and misinformation already hinder care-seeking behaviours.
​
This issue is multifaceted, encompassing political, psychological, anthropological, and epistemological considerations. While the full scope of these dimensions cannot be addressed in a single piece, this article synthesises relevant literature on the subject and presents evidence from recent research that illustrates the depth of the problem.
​
The evidence
​
The growing public discourse around mental health is a promising development in many societies. However, the increased visibility of mental health topics has not been accompanied by a proportional rise in mental health literacy. John Piacentini, PhD, a professor of psychiatry at the University of California, Los Angeles, aptly notes, “But now in the name of mental health literacy, we’re also seeing some mental health illiteracy.”
​
The production and reception of mental health information on social media are shaped by several individual and contextual factors. Studies have found that professionals in health fields are significantly less likely to post misinformation compared to lay users. On the recipient side, factors such as socioeconomic status, political orientation, psychological vulnerability, age, and health literacy all influence how information is interpreted and acted upon (Pan, Liu & Fang, 2021).
​
A 2023 study (Bizzotto, de Bruijin & Schulz, 2023) involving over 400 participants in Italian-speaking online communities for mental health (OCMHs) on Facebook found a clear relationship between misinformation exposure and belief in that misinformation. This effect was particularly pronounced among individuals with lower depression literacy and those participating in peer-led rather than expert-led communities. These findings indicate that both internal factors (such as mental health literacy) and external factors (such as the type of online community) can moderate the impact of misinformation.
​
Misinformation's effects are exacerbated when combined with negative personal experiences. Lorenzo-Luaces et. al, examined TikTok videos on Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and found that negative attitudes toward CBT often stemmed from users’ previous unsatisfactory experiences. For those unfamiliar with the therapy, such portrayals can create undue scepticism and erode trust in evidence-based treatments. Similarly, Tan et. al found that users in Facebook and Reddit support groups for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders (OCD) frequently encountered misinformation and struggled to assess its validity. Notably, 37% of participants reported that peer advice influenced their management strategies, yet only half had consulted a mental health professional about these changes. This suggests a dangerous trend in which peer-to-peer communication supplants expert guidance.
Further research from PlushCare, analysing 500 TikTok videos tagged #mentalhealthadvice and #mentalhealthtips, found that 84% of mental health-related content was misleading, and 14% potentially harmful. Alarmingly, 100% of ADHD-related content, 94% of bipolar-related content, and 90% of depression-related content fell under the category of misinformation. Only 9% of content creators had any relevant qualification, while the remaining 91% lacked the professional expertise necessary to offer sound mental health advice.
​
In the UK, The Guardian recently reported an analysis of 100 TikTok videos offering mental health advice under the hashtag #mentalhealthtips. They found that 52% of videos contained misinformation. David Okai, consultant neuropsychiatrist at King’s College London, criticised the misuse of clinical language in many of these videos, noting the conflation of wellbeing, anxiety, and mental disorders. Dan Poulter, NHS psychiatrist and former health minister, noted that many videos pathologised ordinary emotional experiences, thereby trivialising serious conditions and contributing to misconceptions. Such trends feed into political narratives that question the legitimacy of rising mental health diagnoses — narratives often advanced without regard for the structural and social determinants of mental health.
​
Conclusion: The Gaps We Cannot Ignore
​
The scale and scope of misinformation about mental health on social media represent an urgent and underexamined public health challenge. While research increasingly documents the presence and impact of such content, key questions remain unanswered. We still lack a clear, operational definition of what constitutes “mental health misinformation.” Much of the existing classification either overestimates the problem, by pathologising personal experience, or underestimates it, by ignoring content that subtly distorts public understanding or reinforces unhealthy norms.
​
There is also limited empirical research on the real-world consequences of exposure to misleading mental health content. While existing studies point to correlations with self-diagnosis, changes in treatment behaviour, and growing mistrust of professionals, there is, to my knowledge, a lack of longitudinal data or robust models that quantify these effects. As mental ill-health continues to rise, and as social media becomes increasingly central to how people conceptualise and manage their emotional wellbeing, these evidence gaps become more pressing.
Digital peer communities are now prominent sources of advice and support for many. Yet, the conditions under which these spaces either mitigate or exacerbate harm remain poorly understood. The potential of expert engagement, regulation, and improved mental health literacy to counteract misinformation is often cited, but rarely studied in depth or implemented at scale.
​
Although the global spread of misinformation during the COVID-19 pandemic prompted new public health policies, fact-checking mechanisms, and funding initiatives focused on infectious disease, mental health has not seen the same response. The evidence base is smaller, and the urgency with which misinformation is addressed remains lower, despite the fact that the consequences, while different in nature, are no less serious.
​
Without meaningful action, the gap between popular understanding and professional consensus will continue to widen. The stakes are high. Misinformation about mental health is not just a digital nuisance, it is a barrier to care, a driver of stigma, and a threat to public wellbeing. As social media continues to shape how mental health is defined, discussed, and treated, the need for rigorous research and responsive public health infrastructure becomes increasingly difficult to ignore.
​
References
​
1. Statista. (n.d.). Social networks - Statistics & facts. Retrieved June 10, 2025, from https://www.statista.com/topics/1164/social-networks/#topicOverview
2. American Psychological Association. (n.d.). Misinformation and mental health. Retrieved June 10, 2025, from https://www.apa.org/topics/journalism-facts/misinformation-mental-health
4. Bizzotto, N., de Bruijn, G. J., & Schulz, P. J. (2023). Buffering against exposure to mental health misinformation in online communities on Facebook: The interplay of depression literacy and expert moderation. BMC Public Health, 23, 1577. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-16404-1
6. Tan, Y. T., Rehm, I. C., Stevenson, J. L., & De Foe, A. (2021). Social media peer support groups for obsessive-compulsive and related disorders: Understanding the predictors of negative experiences. Journal of Affective Disorders, 281, 661–672. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.094
7. PlushCare. (n.d.). TikTok and mental health: What you need to know. Retrieved June 10, 2025, from https://plushcare.com/blog/tiktok-mental-health
8. Jones, H. (2025, May 31). More than half of top 100 mental health TikToks contain misinformation, study finds. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/may/31/more-than-half-of-top-100-mental-health-tiktoks-contain-misinformation-study-finds