The 2026 Edelman Trust Barometer Special Report: Trust and Health shows a healthcare environment that is both familiar and newly complex. People still trust doctors and healthcare professionals. But those trusted experts now sit within a much broader information ecosystem, where AI, creators, peers, online communities, and personal experience all play a role in shaping health decisions.
This was the focus of our recent Edelman EMEA panel, Who Shapes Health Decisions Now? Trust, Influence, and Credibility in an AI- and Creator-Driven Healthcare Ecosystem. The discussion brought together voices from across the health landscape: Alex Ruani, University College London researcher in health misinformation; Mazar Masud, Senior Vice President of Corporate Affairs at M42; Dr Ahmed Ezzat, surgeon, creator and founder of Health Creator Leaders; and Dr Lewis Arthurton, Head of Policy and Communications at Alzheimer’s Disease International.
One of the most striking findings in this year’s report is that the problem is not simply that people lack information. In many cases, they have too much of it. They are searching more, reading more, comparing more and turning to more sources than ever before. Yet this does not always make them feel more confident.
As Alex Ruani said during the discussion, “We often assume that more information leads to better decisions, but the data suggests the opposite is happening right now.” She described the challenge as “less as an information deficit problem” and more of a question of information quality and navigation.
That is an important point for health communicators. For many years, we have worked on the basis that the right information, clearly explained, will help people make better choices. That remains true, but it is no longer sufficient. People need help to work out which sources to trust, which claims to question and what a piece of information means for them personally.
The report also challenges the idea that divisive health beliefs sit at the margins. They are more mainstream, more widespread and less predictable than many might expect. They cut across age, education and political identity. Often, they are held by people who are highly engaged with health information, not disengaged from it.
Lewis Arthurton reflected on the long shadow of contested health information, referencing the MMR debate in the UK and its lasting consequences. “If we’re needing to now go back a quarter of a century and revisit what should be established scientific fact and understanding, how do we as a community tackle the evolving evidence landscape around dementia?”
This is the reality facing health organisations. Trust can be lost quickly, but it is rebuilt slowly. It is also not rebuilt by assertion alone. It requires consistency, humility and a clear understanding of what people are hearing elsewhere.
AI adds a further layer. More than a third of people in the report say they are already using AI to manage their health. Mazar Masud described this as being driven by “the need for immediate answers to questions, to interpret medical test results, to not have to wait.” This is understandable. In stretched health systems, people will look for fast, accessible guidance.
But AI also brings questions of accuracy, privacy, safety and accountability. As Mazar said, “The trust needs to be built in this space.” Health organisations cannot afford to treat AI as a future issue. It is already part of the way many people are forming views about their health.
Creators are now part of that same trust equation. Dr Ahmed Ezzat argued that healthcare professionals cannot be absent from the places where people are seeking information. “Doctors really should not be complacent,” he said. “We need to move the popular mass of healthcare professionals into responsible content creation.”
His point is not that expertise should be replaced by popularity. Quite the opposite. Credible expertise needs to travel better. As Ahmed put it, “The concept of my doctor isn’t just within the four walls of a clinic room.” Trusted voices need to be present where people are already listening.
This also means being thoughtful about who carries health messages. Reach is not the same as credibility. A large audience does not make someone the right partner. Equally, a scientific qualification alone does not guarantee that someone can communicate in a way that feels relevant and human.
Perhaps the clearest conclusion from the panel was that health organisations need to move from being only sources of authority to becoming trusted guides. That does not mean weakening the role of expertise. It means making expertise more useful.
Lewis made the case for grounding communication in lived experience: “Communication needs to be grounded in the reality of what people are experiencing every day.” Without that, he warned, “we lose that trust.”
Alex captured the same point from another angle: “People are not looking to be dictated to; they are looking for guidance.”
That is the challenge for health communicators now. We must understand who our audiences trust, where they go for information, and what assumptions they bring with them. We must work with a wider group of credible voices, including healthcare professionals, patient communities, creators, and people with lived experience. And we must communicate with clarity, empathy, and regularity.
The answer is not to speak louder. It is to be more useful, more present and more trusted in the moments when people are trying to make decisions that matter.
Watch the full recording of the Edelman EMEA panel to hear the complete discussion with Alex Ruani, Mazar Masud, Dr Ahmed Ezzat and Lewis Arthurton.