SGEM Xtra: Talkin’ Bout a Revolution…Training Health Communicators

Podcast: Play in new window

Subscribe: RSS

Date: October 17, 2025

Dr. Kristen Panthagani

Guest Skeptic: Dr. Kristen Panthagani is an emergency medicine resident and Yale Emergency Scholar at Yale New Haven Hospital. She’s a physician-scientist, having completed her MD/PhD at Baylor College of Medicine. She’s also well known as a science communicator, creator of You Can Know Things which helps explain science in a way everybody can understand, with an emphasis on addressing health rumors and explaining evidence-based medicine.

This SGEM Xtra is inspired by piece in the New England Journal of Medicine titled, Training Health Communicators-The Need for a New Approach. It covers the shifting landscape of how and where people are getting health information, specifically social media. It also provides some key competencies to keep in mind as we train healthcare professionals and scientists to communicate in these spaces.

The idea of “social media” has existed for a long time. Check out the book Writing on the Wall by Tom Standage to learn more.

We last covered the topic of science communication on a SGEM Xtra with Sarah Mojarad where she gave us five tips for science communication. Today we have five themes from your article to discuss.

Listen to the SGEM Xtra podcast to hear Dr. Panthagani discuss these themes in detail.

Shifting Information Sources

People’s habits are changing. They are going to different sources to get health information, and we have to adapt and evolve to stay relevant.

• The idea of “talk with your doctor if you have questions” is often impractical if people cannot get timely appointments in clinic.
• Websites for universities and organizations can be reputable sources, but health information is not always presented at the recommended health literacy level.

People are not fans of the top-down, “I am the high and mighty institution or organization. Let me tell you what to do” approach anymore. So where are people turning for health information?

• People are increasingly getting their information from social media.
• Over half of adults in the US report getting health information from social media.
• It is unlikely that we can simply tell people to stop using social media for this purpose.

Putting a Face to the Message

How can we harness social media? The typical dry and stiff presentation with text-heavy slides at a scientific conference is unlikely to grab people’s attention.

• People gravitate toward authenticity.
• A more raw, informal style may be resonate more compared to a polished, rehearsed message
• “Be a real person.”

These were tips about style of communication. What tips do you have for creating content?

• If it’s boring to you, it’s probably boring for your audience.
• Don’t do stuff you hate. If you like writing, don’t create reels. Find ways to write articles, commentary, Substack, etc.
• You don’t have to do it all.

Bidirectional Communication

Traditional health communication has been top-down from institutions/organizations to the consumer. There is a difference between information dissemination versus communication.

• Information dissemination is one direction.
• Communication is bi-directional
• Listen to the audience
• Be careful that the scientific understanding of a term (ex. “immunity”) may not be the colloquial understanding.
• Data is not enough. Unite over shared values.

Bidirectional communication requires time and effort.

• Don’t feel obligated to respond to every comment.
• Read the comments to gauge understanding and identify points of confusion.

Acknowledging Uncertainty

This is a sore spot when it comes to the communication that came during the Covid-19 pandemic. We have to acknowledge that this was a really tough time. We confronted a novel disease and pathogen. The language around topics like vaccines, social distancing, masking, did not really acknowledge that these interventions are not perfect. Guidance changed based on new and emerging data.

• This is difficult and requires balancing the simplicity of the message with the nuance.
• We did not do a good job communicating nuance and uncertainty in the early data.

How will the public receive scientists acknowledging uncertainty when there are other voices (who may lack knowledge or expertise) proclaiming their message loudly and confidently?

• People may appreciate nuance more than we give them credit for.
• Sometimes saying, “I don’t know” can actually built trust.

Be Nice

Dr. Panthagani has a Substack article about why criticizing “anti-vaxxers” backfires. In it she brings up a distinction between shame and guilt from research Brene Brown.

• Guilt focuses on the behavior and the decision.
• Shame attacks the character of the person. 

Not surprisingly, making people feel stupid, calling them stupid, or being quick to label them doesn’t really work when it comes to effective science communication.

• Using shame-based methods makes things worse
• Find ways to connect over shared values.

Keep in mind Graham’s hierarchy of disagreement. We want to be refuting the central point that is being made and do so respectfully. We can disagree without being disagreeable.

The SGEM will be back next episode doing a structured critical appraisal of a recent publication. Trying to cut the knowledge translation window down from over 10 years to less than 1 year using the power of social media. So, patients get the best care, based on the best evidence.

Remember to be skeptical of anything you learn, even if you heard it on the Skeptics’ Guide to Emergency Medicine.

References: