News and Insights
Trust in health information is under pressure. Rebuilding it will take more than evidence.
May 13, 2026
At a World Health Summit concurrent session in Nairobi titled Trust in Science: Advancing Quality Health Information in the Age of Digital Health, one idea came up repeatedly: the problem is no longer a lack of information. It is whether people believe it.
The discussion, convened by the Nature Medicine Commission, brought together editors, researchers and communicators grappling with a shared reality. Health information is moving faster and reaching further than ever before, but trust in that information is becoming harder to secure.
Evidence is necessary, but it is not enough
Ben Johnson, Editor-in-Chief of Nature, pointed to what remains the foundation. Policymakers need high-quality, peer-reviewed evidence to respond to global health challenges, particularly in an environment shaped by misinformation and disinformation.
But the conversation did not stop there. There was a clear recognition in the room that strong evidence does not automatically translate into public trust.
A recent Nature study linked to the Commission’s work reinforces this. Drawing on data from 31,000 respondents across multiple countries, it shows that people do not judge information on accuracy alone. Trust is shaped by whether information feels credible, relevant, transparent and aligned with their context.
That gap between what is scientifically sound and what people accept is becoming harder to ignore.
A blurred line between real and synthetic
Dr Ozge Tuncalp, Commissioner and co-secretariat lead at the Institute of Tropical Medicine in Antwerp, spoke about how quickly the information environment is changing.
Artificial intelligence has made it easier to produce and distribute content at scale, but it has also made it more difficult to distinguish what is real from what is not. The challenge is no longer limited to misinformation. It is about how convincing information can be, regardless of its accuracy.
This shift is placing pressure on the entire health information ecosystem, from researchers to media to policymakers.
Why local voices matter
For Vivianne Ihekweazu, Managing Director for the Nigeria Health Watch, credibility cannot be separated from context.
She stressed that AI and digital tools need to operate in local languages and reflect local realities if they are going to be trusted. Without that, they risk reinforcing bias and distancing the very audiences they are meant to reach.
Her point was clear. Health information resonates more strongly when it is grounded in familiar voices and lived experience. Centring African perspectives is not an add-on; it is essential to building trust.
Digital is now the front line
Dr Mercy Korir, CEO and Editor-in-Chief, Willow Health Media, brought the discussion back to audience behaviour.
Across Africa, more people are consuming news and health information online. For many, digital platforms are the first point of contact with health messaging.
She noted that people are more likely to trust information that feels close to them, whether through language, cultural context or the identity of the expert delivering it. Increasingly, that means a preference for African voices.
At the same time, there is a growing disconnect. What circulates online does not always align with what healthcare professionals are saying on the ground. When those two realities do not match, confusion sets in, and misinformation finds space to spread.
Information alone does not change minds
Professor Nancy Booker, Graduate School of Media and Communication, Aga Khan University, added an important distinction. Having the right information is only part of the equation. How that information is received matters just as much.
Messages that connect with people’s realities tend to travel further, even when they are less accurate. That puts pressure on those communicating health information to think beyond facts and consider how those facts are understood.
Accountability cannot sit with one group
As the conversation shifted to questions of responsibility, it became clear there were no simple answers.
Dr Ozge emphasised the need for coordinated accountability across sectors. Technology developers, policymakers, researchers and media all play a role in shaping the information environment. When those efforts are not aligned, gaps emerge.
Professor Scott Ratzan, Co-Chair, Nature Medicine Commission on Quality Health Information for All and Editor in Chief, Journal of Health Communication, emphasised the role of the media within that system. He argued that journalists have a responsibility not only to provide accurate, high-quality information, but also to actively correct misinformation when it appears.
What this means for Africa
What emerged from the session was a shift in how the problem is framed.
Improving the quality of health information is still critical, but it is no longer sufficient. The real challenge is whether that information is trusted, understood and acted upon.
For African countries, this raises practical questions about where investment and attention should go.
A call for ownership
If trust is shaped by context, language and lived experience, then Africa cannot rely solely on systems developed elsewhere to address this challenge.
There is a need to invest in African-led research, strengthen the visibility of African experts, and ensure that digital tools, including AI, are designed with local realities in mind.
The future of digital health will depend less on how much information is produced and more on who people choose to believe.
Africa has an opportunity to shape that future more deliberately.
Doing so will require coordination, investment and a willingness to centre its own voices in the global health conversation. Without that, the trust gap will continue to widen.
POSTED BY: Sharon Quntai
