Think about the next state of affairs. You’re mendacity in mattress, cellphone in hand, scrolling by means of TikTok. A video pops up in your For You feed: “5 indicators you may have ADHD.” One other video claims trauma rewires your mind in methods therapists gained’t let you know about. It feels relatable, maybe even reassuring – however is it correct, and might or not it’s trusted?
Social media platforms resembling Fb, Instagram, TikTok and YouTube have change into a significant supply of psychological well being info, notably for younger folks. They provide fast solutions, shared experiences, and validation (Loades et al., 2025). However as earlier Psychological Elf blogs have highlighted, the identical platforms can even amplify misery and unfold false or deceptive info – in any other case often called misinformation (learn blogs by Margherita and Sarah).
Well being-related misinformation is more and more widespread on social media, with earlier research urged 80% of health-related content material is misinformation, and that it’s extra widespread than correct well being info (Suarez-Lledo & Alvarez-Galvez 2021; Wang et al., 2019). However what about content material that’s particular to psychological well being and neurodivergence?
To deal with this hole within the literature, Carter and colleagues (2026) carried out a scientific overview to know how widespread psychological well being and neurodivergence-related misinformation is on social media, in addition to assess the accuracy, high quality and reliability of the knowledge discovered.
Psychological well being and neurodivergence-related content material on social media may be skilled as reassuring and validating, however is it all the time correct, and might or not it’s trusted?
Strategies
The authors searched 4 databases for articles written in English that evaluated the standard and/or accuracy of psychological well being and neurodivergence-related info on social media. Research have been screened by one creator on the title and summary stage and the full-text stage, with 25% double-screened by one other creator; this course of was repeated for information extraction. Google Scholar and the reference lists of included articles have been additionally searched to determine any lacking papers.
Examine high quality was assessed utilizing a software developed in a earlier overview on well being misinformation on social media (Suarez-Lledo & Alvartez-Galvez, 2021). Once more, one creator critically appraised all research, with 25% appraised by a second creator. The imply high quality ranking for included research was 65%, indicating good high quality; nevertheless, research ranged from 41% (poor high quality) to 80% (top quality).
Outcomes
Examine traits
Twenty-seven research have been included on this systematic overview, with the bulk evaluating YouTube (n = 18) and TikTok (n = 5). Virtually a 3rd of research centered on neurodivergence, particularly autism (n = 4) and attention-deficit hyperactivity dysfunction (ADHD; n = 4), with the remaining exploring numerous psychological well being diagnoses, together with anorexia (n = 3), bipolar (n = 2), and obsessive compulsive dysfunction (OCD; n = 2). A complete of 5,057 social media posts have been analysed throughout research.
What’s misinformation?
13 research offered clear definitions of misinformation, most of which outlined it as, “content material which contained factually inaccurate and/or scientifically unsubstantiated claims”.
How a lot info is on social media?
Prevalence charges for misinformation have been reported in 17 research. Misinformation was highest on TikTok (35%), whereas misinformation on YouTube was typically decrease (22%), though this did fluctuate by matter (e.g., 6.7% for dissociative id dysfunction, 57% for MRI claustrophobia). YouTube Youngsters had the bottom fee of misinformation, with 0% for nervousness and despair and 9% for ADHD. The imply prevalence of misinformation on Fb was 15% (n = 2), and the reported prevalence of misinformation on X/Twitter was 19% (n = 1). Usually, misinformation was extra widespread for neurodivergence than psychological well being situations.
What’s the reliability and high quality of data on social media?
YouTube content material was typically extra dependable and of upper high quality than different social media platforms. Nevertheless, this was not constant and doesn’t essentially imply that the content material was good high quality or dependable.
Content material created by professionals was normally extra dependable and better high quality than content material by non-professionals; nevertheless, some research did counsel that skilled and patient-created content material was equally dependable.
Psychological well being and neurodivergence-related misinformation seem like highest on TikTok and customarily decrease on YouTube, with only a few research contemplating misinformation on Fb, X/Twitter, or Instagram.
Conclusions
Carter et al. (2026) conclude that the reliability and high quality of psychological well being and neurodivergence-related info on social media is extremely variable, each between and inside platforms, and that this could possibly be as a result of quite a lot of causes.
Apparently, the authors spotlight that, “this variability means that platform-specific components, resembling algorithmic programs and content material moderation, might affect the unfold of misinformation”, with the search-based designs of YouTube and Fb maybe being much less problematic than algorithm-driven TikTok, however far more analysis is required to correctly perceive what drives misinformation on social media, and what we will do to mitigate it.
The standard of psychological well being and neurodivergence-related info varies extensively throughout platforms, and algorithm-driven feeds might play a key position in shaping what folks see.
Strengths and limitations
This can be a well-conducted systematic overview that addresses a collection of vital and well timed questions on psychological well being and neurodivergent-related misinformation on social media, offering a beneficial contribution to the literature. The overview was pre-registered on the Open Science Framework (however not PROSPERO, which is extra generally used) and adhered to applicable tips, making certain clear and correct reporting, which will increase its reliability.
Nevertheless, I can’t assist however query why solely 25% of articles have been double screened at every stage, and inter-rater reliability statistics weren’t calculated or reported. We’re more and more seeing this in systematic evaluations as a result of pragmatics – 100% double screening is a job that takes a substantial period of time. However in a technique that’s identified for its rigour exactly due to this thoroughness, I can’t assist however surprise if probably eligible and informative research have been missed, and if this overview is as complete because it may have been. Then once more, the search technique for the overview was fairly broad, with no restrictions on examine kind, inhabitants, or publication date – however this does make it much more crucial that 100% of articles have been double screened, because the inclusion standards was comparatively open to interpretation.
The included research have been extremely heterogeneous, making direct comparability troublesome, and there was a transparent platform imbalance, with 18 research assessing YouTube and solely two assessing Fb, for instance. This necessitates warning when decoding the findings from this overview; whereas we may be extra assured of the findings in relation to YouTube, findings from different platforms appear tentative at finest.
Lastly, as is usually the case with systematic evaluations, there are methodological weaknesses related to the included research that have an effect on the overview itself. Whereas the imply ranking of examine high quality was 65%, indicating good high quality, it did dip as little as 41%. The authors present a useful desk summarising the examine high quality scores, and it looks as if examine high quality was typically lowered by the search technique, resembling mentioning search instruments, utilizing multiple search engine, and reporting preliminary hits, which limits replicability and total transparency. Extra high-quality analysis is required on this space.
Whereas it is a well-conducted and well timed systematic overview, the dearth of inter-rater reliability statistics and restricted proof throughout platforms means findings ought to be interpreted with warning.
Implications for follow
Whereas the findings from this systematic overview must be handled with warning because of the total lack of knowledge that may be drawn on, there are fascinating implications for anybody concerned in public psychological well being. The vital factor to recollect is that persons are already utilizing these platforms for info on psychological well being and neurodivergence, no matter reliability or high quality. Now that we now have some synthesised details about which platforms are usually kind of dependable, we will take into consideration how we would improve the reliability of this info, or how we will steer folks in direction of extra correct, useful content material.
For clinicians, this examine is a crucial reminder in regards to the potential affect of social media on service customers, and the sorts of conversations which will come up in follow. As a number of of us at The Psychological Elf wrote in a latest debate article, it is very important have open and sincere conversations with people who’re sharing or consider misinformation, making certain that it’s approached with out judgement of dismissal (Higson-Sweeney et al., 2026). There are quite a few methods for clinicians to help service customers to suppose critically in regards to the info they could see on social media, and to seek out content material that it relatable and validating, in addition to correct and dependable.
For researchers, this reinforces the truth that sharing evidence-based findings with most people is a crucial a part of the analysis course of; in case you’re not sharing your findings, then maybe another person will, and it will not be as correct. There may be additionally a necessity for additional analysis on this space. Personally, I’d additionally like to see larger-scale analysis that focuses on particular psychological well being and neurodivergence-related misinformation on social media platforms. Analysis ought to instantly evaluate misinformation throughout situations, platforms and varieties of content material (e.g., written posts, short-form movies, long-form movies), in addition to contemplating how folks interpret and use this info – simply because it’s obtainable doesn’t imply persons are taking it at face worth (Loades et al., 2025).
For policymakers, there’s a must develop clearer requirements for social media platforms in regards to the moderation of health-related info, together with content material on psychological well being and neurodivergence. Complete definitions relating to what counts as misinformation and the way it ought to be addressed (together with discussions of algorithms) would possibly assist to cut back the quantity of misinformation that’s circulated or at the very least immediate these partaking with this content material to be vital and to not essentially consider all the things they’re studying.
Lastly, I feel it is very important caveat that misinformation shouldn’t be conflated with sharing lived expertise. I wrote a weblog final 12 months about portrayals of CAMHS on TikTok, and whereas the movies analysed might not have introduced a complete image of the service and accounted for various views, it however mirrored how these younger folks felt and what that they had skilled. Once more, I feel there’s a must make clear what misinformation is and isn’t, to guarantee that correct info is shared with out dismissal or disempowerment.
Persons are already utilizing social media to hunt out psychological well being and neurodivergence-related info, so what can we do to mitigate the impression of misinformation on these platforms?
Assertion of pursuits
Nina Higson-Sweeney continuously collaborates with one of many authors of the present examine, however had no data or involvement on this examine. Past this, she has no different conflicts of curiosity to declare.
Hyperlinks
Main paper
Alice Carter, Fergus Gracey, Joanna Moody, Amber Ovens, & Eleanor Chatburn. (2026). High quality, reliability and misinformation in psychological well being and neurodivergence content material on social media: a scientific overview. Journal of Social Media Analysis, 3(1), 30-47. https://doi.org/10.29329/jsomer.84
Different references
Hetrick, S. (2018). Social media: good and unhealthy experiences and the impression on despair. The Psychological Elf.
Higson-Sweeney, N. (2025). “I don’t want a cup of tea, I would like some @#$%&! assist”: #camhs by means of the lens of TikTok. The Psychological Elf.
Higson‐Sweeney, N., Badenoch, D., & Tomlin, A. (2026). Debate: Standing up for science–methods to fight misinformation in youngster psychological well being? 5 suggestions for disentangling truth from fiction. Little one and Adolescent Psychological Well being, 31(1), 74-76. https://doi.org/10.1111/camh.70055
Loades, M. E., Higson‐Sweeney, N., Teague, B., Leas, J., Payne‐Cook dinner, C., Slastikova, A. V., … & Biddle, L. (2025). What do they search for and what do they discover? A coproduced qualitative examine on younger folks’s experiences of trying to find psychological well being info on-line. Psychology and Psychotherapy: Idea, Analysis and Apply, 98(2), 373-395. https://doi.org/10.1111/papt.12550
Suarez-Lledo, V., & Alvarez-Galvez, J. (2021). Prevalence of well being misinformation on social media: systematic overview. Journal of Medical Web Analysis, 23(1), e17187. https://doi.org/10.2196/17187
Wang, Y., McKee, M., Torbica, A., & Stuckler, D. (2019). Systematic literature overview on the unfold of health-related misinformation on social media. Social Science & Medication, 240, 112552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2019.112552
Zenoni, M. (2021). Social media peer help teams for OCD and associated issues: useful or dangerous? The Psychological Elf.
