18.97.14.90
dgid:
enl:
npi:0
/nas/content/live/oph360live/wp-content/themes/rd360/single.php
-Advertisement-
Ocular Surface Disease
Practice Management

Dispelling eye health myths seen on social media

Posted on

By Dagny Zhu, MD

The contents of this article are informational only and are not intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment recommendations. This editorial presents the views and experiences of the author and does not reflect the opinions or recommendations of the publisher of Ophthalmology 360.

More than 5 billion people used social media worldwide in 2024, and this number is projected to grow to over 6 billion in 2028.1 The health care industry is impacted by this trend since nearly 70% of people surveyed reported that the internet was the first place they turned for their most recent health information search.2

As the use of social media grows, misinformation is increasing. A recent study of popular ophthalmology content on TikTok indicated that a significant portion of this content is created by non-eye care providers and contains misinformation.3

In the past, I often found untruths in ophthalmology-related social media posts to be minor, though lately I have seen more blatant misrepresentations. There are drops advertised to magically cure floaters, glaucoma, and macular degeneration. Methods to naturally reduce your eyeglass prescription are promoted regularly, as are drops to change eye color. A recent trend presented blow dryers as good tools to curl eyelashes.

Patients who are exposed to this inaccurate information may use ineffective or even harmful products. Their trust in health care providers can be eroded, leading to avoidance or postponement of treatment, and they may become confused about preventative measures.

Sometimes, false hype leads doctors and patients to dismiss a topic even when it is worth consideration. There are exaggerated claims about the dangers of blue light on social media, for example, many stemming from laboratory studies that evaluated acute exposure to high-intensity blue light, rather than the blue light in an everyday environment. This hype leads many health care providers to entirely dismiss potential risks associated with blue light, when in reality, it can disrupt circadian rhythms by suppressing melatonin,4 leading to sleep disturbances, and it has been shown to cause oxidative stress, potentially damaging ocular tissue.5

As a LASIK refractive surgeon, anti-LASIK and anti-refractive surgery myths are the false statements on social media that affect my practice the most. There are claims that LASIK is bad for everyone, that it will result in chronic dry eye for life, and that there is a high risk of blindness. I often have patients come in interested in refractive surgery but a little scared because they have seen these claims online.

Promoting an Emphasis on Clinical Evidence

The best way to combat myths is to educate patients about the importance of clinical research and the products developed in accordance with this evidence. In my practice, I have genuine conversations with patients, answering their questions and letting them know about the current body of scientific knowledge. I dispel myths by going over data. I will even hand peer-reviewed papers to some of my patients.

I have found this kind of education to be effective, but I can only apply it to the patients who come into my practice. Others are scared away by falsehoods that I never have the opportunity to correct.

I believe that as doctors, we need to be active on social media to counteract falsehoods. I saw this become more common during the COVID pandemic, as doctors sought to dispel myths around SARS-CoV-2 and vaccines. Some doctors have continued to be active on social media, but they still represent a minority.

Those presenting falsehoods on social media understand the algorithms that will make their posts go viral, increasing their reach. I have noticed many of these people are becoming better at disguising their backgrounds and the status of their products. Many go to great lengths to falsely present themselves as experts and to give the impression that their product is FDA-approved.

As doctors, we too need to be aware of how to work with algorithms to increase reach of accurate information. Dry videos presenting facts do not do well. While it is always important to remain professional, videos must be catchy.

Personality is important. We need to be the doctor and have our faces out there. In a web-based study that searched for ophthalmology-related posts on Instagram,6 my colleagues and I found that white coats as well as captions and images featuring personal experiences were among the predictors for the highest engagement.

Videos of health care providers reacting to misleading videos also do well, as do videos that follow recent viral trends. We need to let ourselves be seen and be a little more creative than most doctors are used to.

When telling patients how to evaluate videos, I recommend paying attention to whether there is research cited, and if there is, is it just 1 study cherry-picked from many? Are the claims too good to be true? In addition to outrageous promises, it is a red flag if there are no mentions of risks, potential side effects, or proper screening and candidacy.

I recommend looking at the video maker’s profile for information such as their title and position. Their website can be scrutinized for financial incentives such as book sales or a subscription model. It can also be helpful to look at the comments. Some astute viewers may make insightful comments debunking misleading content.

Choosing Proven Effectiveness From a Sea of Claims

Without the ability to separate truth from lies, patients often tend to have undifferentiated views on topics. I see this in my patients when it comes to nutraceuticals. I believe supplements will play an increasingly important role in the treatment of ocular surface disease, but there are so many supplements being hyped on social media that patients have trouble determining which are supported by evidence. We need to guide our patients through this landscape.

It is tough for consumers to analyze all of the different supplements, looking not only at ingredients but also concentrations. As doctors, we must recommend specific formulations or brands that we know are made from quality products in a concentration level that is supported by evidence. I often provide these products right in my office.

For ocular surface disease, for example, I carry HydroEye® (ScienceBased Health). I explain to my patients that not all omega acids are created equal and that the gamma-linolenic acid (GLA) contained in the supplement has been shown to help modulate the body’s inflammatory response.7,8 The nutraceutical combines GLA, an omega-6 fatty acid, with omega-3 fatty acids as well as other nutrient cofactors and has been found to be effective in a double-blind, randomized, multicenter, controlled trial.9 I emphasize the importance of a clinical trials versus anecdotal evidence.

On the occasion that I have patients with macular degeneration, I talk to them about nutraceuticals such as those from PreserVision and ScienceBased Health that have been formulated in accordance with the findings of the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2).10 I know that these supplements follow the evidence both in terms of ingredients and concentration.

We must be guides, meeting our patients where they are with the kind of research-based information they need to make smart choices. We need to build their ability to discern fact from fiction, but we also need to build trust in our position as experts.

Conclusion

As social media use increases, the number of patients encountering false claims online is growing. Those presenting the misinformation are becoming more brazen and sophisticated, as they usually seek to line their pockets and boost their influence. It is our responsibility to educate our patients about evidence-based products and the importance of clinical research. I do this within my practice, and I also consider it necessary to do it beyond my practice through social media to reach those who are not visiting us in the clinic.

Dagny Zhu, MD, is a cornea, cataract, and refractive surgeon and Medical Director and Partner at NVISION Eye Centers in Rowland Heights, California. Disclosure: Dr. Zhu is a consultant for ScienceBased Health.

References

  1. Dixon SJ. Number of social media users worldwide from 2017 to 2027. Statista. May 17, 2024. Accessed January 10, 2025. https://www.statista.com/statistics/278414/number-of-worldwide-social-network-users/
  2. Finney Rutten LJ, Blake KD, Greenberg-Worisek AJ, Allen SV, Moser RP, Hesse BW. Online health information seeking among US adults: measuring progress toward a healthy people 2020 objective. Public Health Rep. 2019;134(6):617-625. doi:10.1177/0033354919874074
  3. Sampige R, Rodgers EG, Huang A, Zhu D. Education and misinformation: exploring ophthalmology content on TikTok. Ophthalmol Ther. 2024;13(1):97-112. doi:10.1007/s40123-023-00834-6
  4. Chang AM, Aeschbach D, Duffy JF, Czeisler CA. Evening use of light-emitting eReaders negatively affects sleep, circadian timing, and next-morning alertness. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112(4):1232-1237. doi:10.1073/pnas.1418490112
  5. Marek V, Mélik-Parsadaniantz S, Villette T, et al. Blue light phototoxicity toward human corneal and conjunctival epithelial cells in basal and hyperosmolar conditions. Free Radic Biol Med. 2018;126:27-40. doi:10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2018.07.012
  6. Huang AS, Abdullah AAN, Chen K, Zhu D. Ophthalmology and social media: an in-depth investigation of ophthalmologic content on Instagram. Clin Ophthalmol. 2022;16:685-694. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S353417
  7. Kapoor R, Huang YS. Gamma linolenic acid: an anti-inflammatory omega-6 fatty acid. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. 2006;7(6):531-534. doi:10.2174/138920106779116874
  8. Macrì A, Giuffrida S, Amico V, Lester M, Traverso CE. Effect of linoleic acid and gamma-linolenic acid on tear production, tear clearance and on the ocular surface after photorefractive keratectomy. Graefes Arch Clin Exp Ophthalmol. 2003;241(7):561-566. doi:10.1007/s00417-003-0685-x
  9. Sheppard JD Jr, Singh R, McClellan AJ, et al. Long-term supplementation with n-6 and n-3 PUFAs improves moderate-to-severe keratoconjunctivitis sicca: a randomized double-blind clinical trial. Cornea. 2013;32(10):1297-1304. doi:10.1097/ICO.0b013e318299549c
  10. Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) Research Group. Lutein + zeaxanthin and omega-3 fatty acids for age-related macular degeneration: the Age-Related Eye Disease Study 2 (AREDS2) randomized clinical trial. 2013;309(19):2005-2015. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.4997
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-
-Advertisement-