KFF/Washington Post Poll Looks at Parents’ Trust in Kids’ Health Content on Social Media, Baseless Claims About Abortion Pill Safety Track FDA Approval of Generic Release – The Monitor
KFF/Washington Post Poll Looks at Parents’ Trust in Kids’ Health Content on Social Media, Baseless Claims About Abortion Pill Safety Track FDA Approval of Generic Release – The Monitor
By kffhagerey | Published: 2025-10-23 11:00:00 | Source: KFF
Volume 33
summary
This volume highlights the latest edition of the KFF/The Washington Post Parent Survey, which found that most parents report seeing children’s health content on social media, but many are unsure how to assess the credibility of advice shared by health and wellness influencers. It also reviews the misleading claims about… Safety of medical abortion After a generic version of the abortion pill mifepristone was approved, it explores reports that federal officials are considering adding autism to the list of conditions covered by the program. Vaccine injury compensation program. Finally, it examines the use Chatbots powered by artificial intelligence By patients seeking interpretation of laboratory results.
Featured: KFF/Washington Post poll of parents finds most parents see kids’ healthy content on social media and many aren’t sure what to trust
The latest KFF/Washington Post poll of parents found that eight in ten parents say they see information or advice about children’s health at least sometimes on social media, including about three in ten who say they see such information daily or weekly. A third (36%) of parents aged 18-34 say they watch this content at least weekly compared to fewer parents aged 35-49 (28%) or those aged 50 or older (22%).
Although most parents say they watch healthy content for kids on social media, few can name a specific influencer they trust for this content. One in seven (15%) parents say they trust a particular influencer for information and advice about children’s health, although only 4% can name the influencer. Parents are also largely divided on their ability to discern whether content provided by influencers is trustworthy. Nearly a third (35%) say it’s easier to know which advice to trust when it comes from health and wellness influencers on social media, while nearly four in ten (38%) say it’s difficult, and another quarter (27%) say they don’t see such content.
When it comes to content related to vaccines specifically, a third of parents say they have seen information or advice about children’s vaccines on social media, including similar posts that say most of the content they see is “pro-vaccine” (8%) and “anti-vaccine” (7%), with one in five (19%) saying they see a mix of both.
Recent developments
Misleading claims about abortion pill safety follow FDA approval of generic version of mifepristone
What is happening?
Claims questioning the safety of the abortion drug mifepristone have been circulating online in the wake of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). consent From the second generic version of the drug. Mifepristone has been approved by the Food and Drug Administration for 25 years with an extensive safety record backed by peer-reviewed research, but the approval has drawn renewed attention to misleading narratives about its safety that have been spread by lawmakers and officials who oppose abortion. The surprise decision to approve a second public version followed a September 19 letter co-authored by Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and FDA Commissioner Marty McCurry. He pledged to conduct a full safety review Of drugs.
What are the common topics in online conversations?
- Posts about the abortion pill increased on X, Reddit, and Bluesky on October 2, the day news of the approval was first reported. KFF’s social media monitoring identified 8,959 posts, reposts and comments mentioning medical abortion-related terms that day, up from the daily average of 2,460 over the previous 30 days.
- Although publications regarding safety concerns represent a relatively small number of publications regarding medical abortion, the narrative has been amplified by some prominent health officials and elected representatives who oppose abortion, despite mifepristone’s long record of safety and effectiveness. The most engaged post about the safety of medical abortion that day came from Senator Josh Hawley, who has more than 2 million followers on
Why is this important?
Unsupported claims questioning the safety of mifepristone despite comprehensive data showing the drug’s safety may influence decisions about medical abortion and create unnecessary anxiety and confusion among people seeking care. Millions of women have taken mifepristone, and medical abortion currently accounts for approximately two-thirds of abortions in the United States. High-profile statements from government officials raising unfounded safety concerns may create confusion or hesitation among patients and providers and increase opposition to a drug when there is no evidence of harm.
What does the evidence say?
Mifepristone is approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). 25 years oldThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) prescribing information indicates that serious adverse events have been demonstrated to occur in less than 0.5% of patients. Other studies have found Similar ratesand major medical organizations, including the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) maintains The medicine is safe.
Reports indicate that the Department of Health and Human Services may add autism to the list of conditions covered by the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program
What is happening?
Reports that federal health officials are considering expanding vaccine injury compensation to include autism may have contributed to a surge in online conversations linking vaccines to the condition, despite decades of research that has shown no link. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., adding autism directly to Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) and expanding definitions of some of the brain conditions covered by the program.
What is VICP?
- The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program is An error-free alternative to the traditional court system For Vaccine Injury Claims, designed to compensate families for rare vaccine injuries. The program, which covers most routine vaccinations and is funded by a small tax on doses administered, manages a trust fund of about $4 billion. The program includes a List of identified infections Which can be caused by each vaccine, and which are assumed to be related to the vaccine if they occur within the time frames shown in the table. Autism has not yet been excluded from this list Extensive lawsuit In the early 2000s, when judges appointed to handle vaccine cases reviewed test cases representing thousands of claims, they found no link between vaccines and autism.
- Compensation decisions through the program do not always indicate causation. Since 1988, About 60% of the cases were compensated They included negotiated settlements in which the Department of Health and Human Services did not reach direct conclusions about the cause of the injuries.
Why is this important?
- Doctors and legal scholars have to caution This could lead to a wave of injury claims, potentially bankrupting the program and promoting false narratives linking vaccines to autism despite decades of research that has shown no link.
- The myth that vaccines cause autism has long been a false claim, and despite repeated debunkings, KFF surveys have found that many parents still express uncertainty about whether this is true or not. Adding autism to the list of covered conditions could be used to suggest that vaccines cause autism despite scientific evidence to the contrary, further eroding trust in vaccines and federal health authorities. research suggests Autism begins early in pregnancy, rather than in childhood when most vaccines are given. The latest KFF-Washington Post version of a parent poll found that at least a third of parents said there has been very little research on what causes autism (44%) or whether there is a link between vaccines and autism spectrum disorder (33%).
What do people say?
News coverage, social media posts, reposts and comments mentioning autism and VICP spiked in late September and early October, according to KFF monitoring. KFF identified 1,647 posts, reposts and comments made on X, Reddit and Bluesky on September 27, an increase from a daily average of just 12 of the previous 90 days. Many of the posts with the most engagement were reposts from an account with more than 400,000 followers that falsely claimed that the VICP admitted that vaccines cause autism. Likewise, the number of news stories mentioning both autism and VICP reached the highest point of the year so far on October 8, with 86 news stories published that day, compared to a daily average of less than one story for the year prior to that date.
What does the evidence say?
Decades of research have shown there is no causal relationship between vaccines, autism, and medical organizations Such as the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP).) concluded that there was no connection. A 2013 CDC studyFor example, it showed that the amount of antigens received from vaccines was the same between children with and without autism, and 2019 cohort study Among more than 650,000 children in Denmark, they found no increased risk of autism from receiving the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine.
Artificial intelligence and emerging technology
Some patients are turning to AI-powered chatbots to interpret lab results
What is happening?
Modern KFF Health News article He detailed the growing trend of patients using artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots like ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini to interpret their medical test results and records when they can’t quickly reach their doctors for answers. Some patients upload lab results, imaging reports, and other medical records to these chatbots to get medical explanations while waiting for doctor callbacks or appointments.
How widespread is this practice?
Data on how often patients specifically upload test results is not readily available, but a KFF tracking survey conducted in August 2024 found that about one in six adults (17%) reported using AI chatbots at least once a month to find health information and advice, rising to one in four (25%) adults under 30. Most adults (63%) said they were “not very confident” or “not at all confident” in the accuracy of health information from AI chatbots, while about a third said they were “very confident” (5%) or “somewhat confident” (31%) in the accuracy of this information.
Why is this important?
While AI-powered chatbots may help patients understand results and Reduce anxietyDoctors and researchers have identified the risks of using this technology. One concern is artificial intelligenceHallucinations“, which are cases where chatbots generate information that is reasonable but is factually inaccurate. Chatbots can deliver false information in the same tone as accurate information, making it difficult for non-medical users to detect errors. These errors can be difficult to detect even for medical personnel. March He studies Published in BMC Medical Education found that trainees in general practice had an average accuracy of only 55% in detecting AI-induced clinical hallucinations.
What does the evidence say?
Research suggests that improved motivational strategies can improve the accuracy of AI-generated responses. April He studies in open university, For example, I found that instructing a chatbot to assume the persona of a doctor improved accuracy, and August Communications medicine He studies showed that including additional safeguards in claims, such as requiring the AI to only use clinically validated information, resulted in a reduced rate of hallucinations. AI education efforts that focus on how to customize prompts to receive the most accurate information may improve the usefulness of these tools. However, these strategies could not completely eliminate errors, and the researchers did Recommended Chatbots should be supplementary tools and not primary sources of health information.
(tags for translation)Abortion
ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ
