ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Predatory marketing and false health promotion on social media: risk pathways in diet, fitness, and supplement communication.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- The relationship between social support, e-Health literacy, sleep quality and Internet addiction disorder in college students: a cross-sectional study.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
As the commercial circulation of health content on social media continues to intensify, large volumes of fitness, nutrition, and wellness information lacking scientific grounding are repeatedly pushed to users, heightening the likelihood that psychologically susceptible individuals internalize distorted beliefs and engage in harmful practices. This study examines the mechanism through which exposure to such content influences psychological vulnerability, strengthens false health beliefs, shapes risky behavioral choices, and ultimately affects perceived health status. Using 482 valid survey responses, we conducted confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, bootstrap mediation tests, multigroup comparisons, and robustness checks to investigate these pathways. The findings show that exposure significantly increases psychological vulnerability, which further promotes endorsement of inaccurate beliefs and encourages risky health behaviors, leading to poorer health outcomes. All indirect effects were statistically supported, and the moderating influences of Government Support and avoidance tendencies revealed that individual and contextual factors can alter the strength of the mechanism. Robustness analyses demonstrated that the belief variable is indispensable, as removing it led to substantial declines in model fit, indicating that adverse outcomes arise not from isolated exposure but from the gradual reinforcement and internalization of misleading claims. These results clarify the psychological and behavioral processes through which misleading health information exerts its influence in digital environments and provide empirical grounding for regulatory strategies that seek to intervene in the formation and consolidation of erroneous health beliefs rather than relying solely on limiting content visibility.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.