Pandemic Preparedness: Can Prebunking Curb Health Myths?

Why does health misinformation matter for pandemic preparedness?

The WHO news release calling for an international pandemic agreement was published on March 20, 2024, with support from more than 100 signatories. Its appeal included a warning about misinformation and emphasized cooperation to improve preparedness. The World Health Assembly subsequently adopted the WHO Pandemic Agreement in May 2025. These milestones provide the background for a practical public health question: how can people obtain understandable, reliable advice when evidence about a new threat is still developing? [WHO's original appeal](https://www.who.int/news/item/20-03-2024-call-for-urgent-agreement-on-international-deal-to-prepare-for-and-prevent-future-pandemics), [WHO's account of the agreement's adoption](https://www.who.int/about/governance/world-health-assembly/intergovernmental-negotiating-body).

WHO describes an information environment in which accurate material competes with false, outdated or confusing claims. This matters because access to a preventive measure or treatment does not ensure that people understand its benefits, limitations or appropriate use. In its December 2024 policy brief, WHO recommends maintaining communication capacity, listening to community concerns and training health workers to address misinformation. The practical implication is that information support needs preparation and staffing before an emergency. [WHO policy brief](https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-policy-brief-building-trust-through-risk-communication-and-community-engagement-and-infodemic-management).

What does research show about prebunking health misinformation?

Prebunking introduces people to a misleading claim or manipulation technique, explains its weakness and prepares them to recognize similar material later. A 2023 systematic review and meta-analysis by Chang Lu and colleagues combined 42 studies involving 42,530 participants across several subjects. Overall, the interventions improved participants' ability to distinguish accurate from inaccurate information, although results varied substantially. [Study in the Journal of Medical Internet Research](https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e49255).

The health-specific analysis included 15 studies. It found reduced perceived credibility of health misinformation and reduced intentions to share it, but did not demonstrate improvements in every outcome. Most studies in the broader review measured responses immediately after the intervention. Assessing a headline correctly or reporting an intention is different from changing health behavior over time. These findings therefore support further evaluation of prebunking as one preparedness tool; they do not establish that it prevents infections, hospitalizations or deaths. [Health-specific findings and study methods](https://www.jmir.org/2023/1/e49255).

How can health services make outbreak advice more trustworthy?

WHO's emergency communication guidance emphasizes timely, understandable information, transparency about uncertainty and communication through channels people use and trust. For an emerging infection, a practical application would be to explain what is known about transmission, what remains uncertain and which protective actions are currently recommended. When advice changes, explaining the evidence behind the change helps people understand the revision. Messages also need review as the emergency develops. [WHO emergency risk communication guideline](https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241550208).

Communication should also allow people to ask questions and report obstacles. For example, difficulty understanding an appointment notice or finding an accessible service requires a practical response. WHO recommends involving communities in developing solutions and supporting health workers who answer public questions. Applied to preparedness, this means combining clear explanations with usable services, accessible information and feedback routes. Prebunking may complement that work, but cannot establish whether a particular patient needs testing or treatment. Those decisions require relevant clinical guidance and, when appropriate, individual assessment. [WHO guidance on community engagement](https://www.who.int/emergencies/risk-communications), [WHO policy brief](https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/who-policy-brief-building-trust-through-risk-communication-and-community-engagement-and-infodemic-management).