Sunny Side Up: Beware misinformation in mental healthcare

In an age of instant information, finding mental health support can be overwhelming. Between genuine help and slick marketing, it can be hard to know what to trust.

In his new book, Mind the Science (2024), Canadian clinical psychologist Dr Jonathan Stea highlights the dangers of misinformation and the wellness industry’s tactics. One major issue is the sheer number of untested therapies.

In an interview with StarLifestyle, he says: “There’s an estimated 600 brands of psychotherapy circulating in the world of mental health – and that number is growing. Many haven’t been tested so we don’t know if they work. Others are pseudoscientific and could be harmful.”

People often turn to alternative treatments due to negative healthcare experiences. Feeling dismissed by professionals, or not receiving the support they need can push people towards unproven therapies that promise quick solutions. These treatments often appeal because they seem personalised and empowering. The wellness industry takes advantage of this frustration.

“Many pseudoscientific treatments are also unethically promoted in the wellness industry by people without any expertise or credentials,” Stea warns.

They often use impressive sounding but legally non-protected titles such as “consultant psychologist” and “wellness coach”.

Some of these “practitioners” exploit vulnerable people with misleading claims. The anti-vaccine and anti-psychiatry movements are prime examples of how distrust in medicine fuels misinformation, says Stea.

“The anti-vaccine movement and the modern anti-psychiatry movement are pseudoscientific assaults on public health.

“Additionally, the wellness and alternative medicine industries financially exploit people’s health and emotional vulnerabilities by commodifying pseudoscientific treatments.

“The result is that we see absurd claims such as denying the existence of germs and mental illness, but promoting the existence of human energy fields, homoeopathic water memory, and telekinetic spoon bending,” Stea says.

These claims create confusion and can lead people to delay or reject legitimate medical care. Unlike science, pseudoscience offers certainty.

“The more warning signs, tactics, and tropes that people see and hear about a particular mental health treatment or practice, the more likely it becomes that hype is being promoted, not evidence or accuracy,” Stea says.

Science, on the other hand, evolves through research, testing, and self-correction. Stea acknowledges that science isn’t perfect: “At the individual level, science literacy, critical thinking, and intelligence are definitely important with respect to not succumbing to misinformation, but they’re only part of the puzzle.”

While scientific understanding progresses over time, pseudoscientific claims often remain static, offering simplistic solutions that ignore complexity. Social media has accelerated the spread of misinformation, as Stea explains: “These online spaces can feel very inclusive, welcoming, validating, and intimate.”

This sense of connection makes people more likely to trust and share misleading health claims.

Intelligence alone doesn’t protect against misinformation. “Even highly intelligent people can fail to think critically about information, especially when they aren’t motivated to do so and believe they’re right,” Stea says.

“Some research even shows that intelligent people may have a somewhat larger bias blind spot than others.”

People often assume alternative treatments are harmless. But Stea warns that many are ineffective at best and harmful at worst: “It’s the task of evidence-based mental health professionals to respect, study, incorporate, and practice in culturally competent ways.”

Meanwhile, pseudoscientific wellness claims often rely on marketing rather than legitimate research.

Cultural appropriation is another issue in the wellness industry. “They sell distrust in modern medicine and frame their own practices as ‘exotic’ or ‘ancient’, but many of the most popular ones were developed relatively recently,” Stea explains. Practices like ayurveda and yoga are sometimes stripped of cultural context and repackaged for profit.

Even mindfulness isn’t immune to exaggerated claims. Research by psychologists Daniel Goleman and Richard Davidson found that only about 1% of mindfulness studies met rigorous scientific standards. While mindfulness has benefits, misleading claims inflate expectations beyond what evidence supports.

When seeking mental health support, Stea suggests asking direct questions: “What are the practitioner’s credentials? What mental health concerns do they specialise in treating? How long have they been licensed and practicing?” Taking the time to vet practitioners can help prevent falling for misleading claims.

Misinformation flourishes when trust in institutions is weak. Stea emphasises that mental health professionals must acknowledge why people turn to alternative treatments while working to rebuild trust.

“It can sometimes be helpful to give credible, evidence-based information on the topic, and it’s important to communicate in ways that express empathy, concern, and care,” he advises.

To combat pseudoscience, Stea believes stronger regulations on wellness claims and mental health services are necessary. People can also sharpen their critical thinking skills: “To strengthen our grift detectors, we need to learn the warning signs of pseudoscience,” he says.

Stea also stresses the need for stronger regulations and accountability in mental healthcare. Without them, misinformation will continue to thrive.

“Your mental health is on the line,” he reminds us. In a world overloaded with information, separating fact from fiction isn’t just important – it’s essential.

Sunny Side Up columnist Sandy Clarke has long held an interest in emotions, mental health, mindfulness and meditation. He believes the more we understand ourselves and each other, the better societies we can create. If you have any questions or comments, e-mail [email protected]. The views expressed here are entirely the writer’s own.