When misinformation erodes human rights: Sexual and reproductive health and rights in the digital age

Today I presented our WHO-commissioned scoping review on misinformation about sexual and reproductive health and rights. We reviewed the evidence and grey literature through a human rights lens, and I took just 15 minutes to review some of the key insights. I share below my notes and link here to my slide deck. The recording is available on the HRP media YouTube channel.

Other speakers that the webinar were Nandita Thatte, DrPH , Dr James Kiarie , Åsa Nihlén , Chelsea Polis, PhD, Innocent Grant , Amanda Cordova-Gomez., PhD. and Tigest Tamrat.

The challenge of sexual and reproductive health misinformation

Misinformation about sexual and reproductive health is spreading quickly online. This false information is not just a nuisance. It shapes health outcomes, tilts decision-making, and even influences laws and policies. Our research covered 254 studies and articles, published between January 2019 and December 2024. We used rigorous database searches and explored grey literature from reliable sources. Our aim was to understand how digital SRHR misinformation affects individuals, communities, health workers, and policymakers.

The data shows that false information directly impacts everyday decisions. People base their health choices on what they read online—often without realizing the source may be untrustworthy. This gap leaves them vulnerable to poor-quality health advice.

Thinking about SRH misinformation through human rights lens

We framed our study using key human rights principles. These include equality and non-discrimination; availability, accessibility, acceptability, and quality; informed decision-making; privacy and confidentiality; participation and inclusion; and accountability. Here’s what we found:

• Equality and non-discrimination: False narratives limit informed choices. They add to fear and stigma. For example, misleading information about pregnancy and LGBTQ+ health reinforces harmful biases. This not only makes people feel excluded but also prevents them from accessing the information they truly need.
• Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality: When low-quality apps and misleading online content replace trusted advice, people suffer. Many menstrual and fertility tracking apps promise accurate data but are not backed by rigorous evidence. In places where services are scarce, such apps become a desperate resource. The result is a gap between what users expect and the reality of the information provided.
• Informed decision-making: Every individual deserves access to clear, evidence-based information. Instead, misinformation steers people toward decisions based on bias and incomplete facts. When false information about fertility treatments or abortion safety circulates, it skews the decision-making process and can even lead to harmful health outcomes.
• Privacy and confidentiality: Privacy is a major concern. Users worry about how menstrual cycle data and other sensitive details might be tracked. Many fear that their information could be sold for advertising or even used against them in regions with strict reproductive laws. This worry can prevent people from seeking the help they need.
• Participation and inclusion: Digital misinformation silences marginalized voices. When inaccurate and stigmatizing content dominates online discussions, those most affected by SRHR issues often withdraw from the conversation. This lack of participation hinders the development of inclusive policies that truly represent everyone’s needs.
• Accountability: When misinformation gains ground, accountability weakens. False narratives can become codified into law. For instance, restrictive abortion laws sometimes rest on misrepresented statistics. When policymakers rely on inaccurate data, efforts to reform or improve services are stifled.

Real-world examples

I shared several (not exhaustive) concrete examples from our research to illustrate these points:

An example of a complex issue are fertility trackers and menstrual cycle apps that are rapidly gaining popularity, but they come with complex challenges that go far beyond simple technology use. Many apps lack evidence-based references and provide unreliable algorithmic predictions, contributing to misinformation about reproductive risks. In the UK, mistrust in hormonal contraception drives some women to adopt these tools, whereas in Brazil, limited access to health services and contraceptives fuels their reliance. In the Netherlands, 77% of women have accessed web sites for health information and 61% have used pregnancy and childbirth apps, even though digital sources were perceived as less trustworthy and less useful compared to health professionals as health information sources. Healthcare workers also often distrust the accuracy of these apps themselves and lack the skills to assess their credibility, while users worry about data privacy—particularly in settings where reproductive healthcare may face legal restrictions.

Then, online health information seeking follows a clear gendered pattern, with most of the reviewed research on SRH misinformation centered on women’s health, LGBTQ+ topics, or youth. Much less attention has been paid to how misinformation impacts men’s health. Meanwhile, online profiteers exploit these patterns through ads, deceptive websites, and questionable direct-to-consumer products that cater to gender-specific needs, beliefs, and identities. You’ll see above, for example, that nonevidence-based women’s health products are a lucrative business under the flag of girl power. And there are plenty of men’s health clinics that do this type of direct-to-consumer marketing for dubious treatments for men.

While improving digital literacy helps people scrutinize dubious claims, health systems also bear responsibility. Individuals often turn to unreliable sources because they fear or feel judged or misunderstood by their healthcare providers or health workers. There’s a pressing need for stronger consumer protections since wellness influencers and commercial clinics escape the professional accountability demanded and expected in traditional medical settings.

Healthcare professionals traditionally rank among the most trusted sources of health information (see US, several other countries globally). However, younger generations now turn to an abundance of online alternatives—like TikTok or YouTube—where influencers with no medical qualifications can be just as, if not more, persuasive. This shift undermines the monopoly that healthcare workers once held in guiding health decisions. Studies show that videos made by health professionals often reach smaller audiences than those from popular influencers. Meanwhile, providers receive little organizational backing or training for engaging in online discussions. They’re expected to adapt, absorb new responsibilities, and expose themselves to greater risks, all without a comprehensive support system or amendments to occupational health and safety policies.

The absence of information can be just as harmful as the presence of misinformation. Recent reports show that misinformation is increasingly woven into policies and laws, reinforcing false narratives and legitimizing them. In the United States and several African countries, it has been reported that legislative or strategic litigation tactics incorporate misinformation and nonvidence-based practices into official frameworks, which amplifies and normalizes these misleading claims.

At the same time, major internet platforms apply inconsistent content moderation that can block or throttle accurate SRHR information in certain regions or languages, while allowing harmful misinformation elsewhere (see 2025 article, and 2024 report). These twin forces reshape online spaces and heighten disparities in digital information. Addressing this requires filling information voids with accessible, localized, and discussion-friendly resources, especially where credible material and services are missing or heavily restricted.

What this means for us

SRHR misinformation is not an isolated phenomenon; it reflects deep, systemic asymmetries in how people access health information and care. The big takeaway from our scoping review is that improving access to quality health information and care will go a long way toward mitigating the harms of misinformation. However, simply chasing after individual misinformation narratives and improving communications through tailored and culturally appropriate delivery is not enough. Sexual and reproductive health is deeply intertwined with individual, community, and social identities and values, which means that addressing it requires systemic, people-centered solutions.

We must apply a human rights lens when strengthening our systems. This approach demands new partnerships, the creation of healthier digital spaces where accurate SRHR information is freely available and openly discussed, and empowered healthcare providers and systems that are better equipped to handle the inevitable impact of the digital information ecosystem.

To protect and promote human rights in sexual and reproductive health, we must align our policies and practices with the real-world needs of people. This means pushing for evidence-based communication, better digital literacy, and stronger safeguards for privacy. When accurate information is delivered hand in hand with quality services, support and products that people need, we can reduce the detrimental power of misinformation.