How do people weigh advice from physicians against competing input from artificial intelligence tools, social media, family, friends and other influential sources? A new report from the Yale School of Public Health (YSPH) and the Edelman Trust Institute examines this complex question with growing importance for medicine.
In a global analysis published on Sept. 15, the researchers examined what happens to clinical authority when patients have more information, more competing voices, and more reasons to second-guess expert guidance. The report raises questions about how medical authority is evolving in a rapidly changing landscape, why expertise alone doesn’t always influence behavior, and how health institutions can strengthen trust.
“One of our strategic priorities is to enhance trust in the science and practice of public health,” said YSPH Dean Megan Ranney. “In order to meet this goal, we first have to understand who and what is considered trustworthy.”
There’s a popular narrative that people get swindled into these beliefs, or that they reflect a lack of access to health care. This data contradicted that assumption.
For Ranney, one of the most surprising findings was that education and health care access did not correlate with divisive health beliefs, including such widespread notions as, “Raw milk is healthier than pasteurized” and “Risk of childhood vaccinations outweighs benefits.”
“There’s a popular narrative that people get swindled into these beliefs, or that they reflect a lack of access to health care,” she said. “This data contradicted that assumption.”
As a researcher, Ranney says there’s a caveat: “We can’t make any conclusions about causation, and we have more analyses to do. But I think it’s important to understand that we are all susceptible to these divisive beliefs.”
Working with the Edelman Trust Institute, the researchers surveyed more than 12,998 people across 13 countries, including Australia, Brazil, India, South Africa, and the U.S., between Feb. 28 and March 11, 2026.
According to the results, nearly one-third of respondents said that an uncredentialed person, like a creator or spiritual leader, has a major influence on their health decisions, in part because these voices offer personal experience, empathy, and easily understandable language that credentialed experts may not.
For Ranney, one of the most sobering findings related to the use of artificial intelligence tools, such as large language models. Nearly half of respondents globally believe someone without medical training who is fluent with AI can perform at least one health-related task as well as or better than a doctor, rising to 59% among 18- to 34-year-olds. These tasks include deciding who needs to seek medical treatment, performing basic procedures, recommending treatment or medicines, and/or diagnosing illness.
Ranney wasn’t surprised that many people trust these tools for diagnosis, wellness recommendations, and even treatment decisions. But for her, seeing the degree to which AI is trusted was nonetheless striking.
“It leads to lots of questions (that we’re already acting on) about to improve the accuracy of commercial LLMs’ health advice,” she said.
In general, the report found that health care providers are still considered the primary authority on questions related to diagnosis and treatment of diseases and conditions, but uncredentialed sources hold growing influence on wellness, longevity, diet, and nutrition. When people receive conflicting health recommendations from a doctor and another source, only 51% say they always follow their doctor.
According to Ranney, the new report is a first step toward using data to better characterize — and then hopefully develop programming to address — the drivers of trust and mistrust. The part that resonated the most with her was the finding about trusting “people like me,” explaining the resonance of influencers on social media today. In fact, this concept is what drove YSPH to launch its Compassionate Dialogue program that helps all incoming stories practice humility and active listening.
“Communities are more likely to trust people who have shared experience,” Ranney said. “I am looking forward to testing new strategies to try to grow this important element of trust.”
In terms of next steps, YSPH will be pursuing additional analyses that will be submitted for peer review, in partnership with Edelman Trust Institute. They’re also beginning to test some strategies to address the misconceptions and drivers of divisive beliefs that were highlighted by this special report.
