Trusted Voices: From research to headlines – understanding 'next pandemic' claims

This Trusted Voices piece brings together two clinicians who also create health information for the public, each working with different audiences and platforms. Dr Azmain Chowdhury is an NHS doctor and widely followed clinician creator. He is known for sharing clear, evidence-based health content online. Sasan Shekarestan is the founder of Mehr Health, a platform providing culturally-relevant health information in Persian, for communities underserved by mainstream sources.

Together, they offer insight into what happens when early-stage virus research moves from the lab into headlines. They explore how information is understood across different communities, and share practical advice for responding when headlines cause concern or confusion.

This article will take five to six minutes to read.

Why 'pandemic' headlines can cause concern

The word “pandemic” does not feel neutral. It has long been associated with fear and uncertainty, but since COVID-19 it carries a stronger emotional weight and can bring recent experiences to mind before people look at the detail or weigh up the risk. The memory of COVID-19 can bring these headlines into sharper focus and increase anxiety for some readers.

Dr Azmain echoes that  the term can trigger fear and anxiety, and adds that it is particularly when headlines lack context. This means people often form a view of the risk from the headline alone, before they look at the evidence.

Sasan Shekarestan agrees and highlights the risk of presenting early or tentative findings in attention-grabbing ways. He explains that when this happens, early findings can be understood as confirmed threats. As a result, possibility is often interpreted as certainty.

The gap between headlines and science

A key issue is the gap between how research is produced and how it is understood.

Sasan explains that early research sits on a continuum, from laboratory findings through to potential real-world impact. A virus identified in animals, for example, is very different from one that can spread between people.

However, this distinction is not always clear once research reaches the public. Recent headlines have suggested that newly identified viruses could pose a “next pandemic” risk, based on early findings that a virus may be capable of infecting humans. While this is an important area of research, it does not mean that a virus is likely to spread between people or poses an immediate threat.

These types of headlines are often shared widely, and without context can be misinterpreted as indicating an immediate threat, particularly as they tap into recent and often traumatic experiences of COVID-19. In some cases, coverage can also misrepresent the stage or nature of the research, which can add to confusion.

Sasan also notes that scientific language is deliberately cautious. Terms like “could” and “may” reflect uncertainty and limitation. When these findings are reported more widely, that uncertainty can be lost or overlooked. What begins as a theoretical risk can then be understood as something far more immediate.

Dr Azmain adds that this is not always about intention. Health stories are often written by journalists whose expertise lies in communicating clearly and quickly. In doing so, complex and uncertain findings can be simplified into more definitive messages. While this can make information more accessible, it can also remove the context people need to understand the level of risk.

Taken together, this creates a disconnect. Research that is cautious and uncertain can be received as clear and urgent, even when no action is needed.

How confusion spreads

Even when reporting is broadly accurate, confusion can develop as information is shared more widely.

Dr Azmain points to coverage of human metapneumovirus (HMPV) as a recent example. Some reports suggested it was a new virus with the potential to become the “next pandemic”. In reality, HMPV is not a novel virus, and there was no evidence at the time to suggest it posed a wider public health threat.

In response, he created content to explain the situation and provide reassurance, clarifying what was known and what was not. He also used this as an opportunity to remind people to seek medical advice if they were concerned, and to remain cautious of misinformation. As he notes, “be wary of fear and misinformation – because that tends to go viral too.”

In January 2025, Dr Azmain created a public-facing video in response to circulating mis and dis information about HMPV virus. You can watch his video here.

Sasan describes how confusion often shows up in practice. People get in touch worried about risks that do not pose a meaningful threat to them at that time. Rather than responding to each story in isolation, he focuses on helping people understand how research develops, so they have a framework to interpret similar headlines in future.

What this looks like in practice

These patterns have real-world effects. Both clinicians describe an increase in people seeking reassurance about risks that are not immediate. This can appear in consultations, messages, and online interactions.

Dr Azmain recalls public reactions to mpox coverage, where concern was sometimes accompanied by misinformation and, in some cases, discriminatory views. While reporting raised awareness of the outbreak, inaccurate or harmful interpretations often developed in online discussions and social media spaces.

For clinicians and health information creators, this creates a challenge. Time and attention can be drawn towards addressing fears about low-risk or unlikely scenarios, while other health needs may receive less focus.

Sasan speaks to a related issue. When people are repeatedly exposed to alarming headlines that do not reflect a real or immediate threat, it can affect trust. Over time, this can lead to scepticism or disengagement, making it harder for people to respond to public health advice when it matters most.

This also highlights the importance of how health risks are communicated. Clear, contextualised information can help reduce unnecessary concern and avoid reinforcing stigma or harmful assumptions. For organisations producing health information, this means thinking carefully about how messages are framed, and how they may be interpreted across different audiences.

Understanding trust across different communities

How people interpret and respond to health information is not the same for everyone. Sasan points out that language is only one part of the picture. Cultural and historical experiences also shape how people understand and trust health information.

Through his work with Persian-speaking communities he focuses on providing information in a way that is both linguistically and culturally relevant. This helps ensure people can access information in a format and context that feels familiar and trustworthy.

He explains that for some Persian-speaking communities, trust in official sources can be influenced by past experiences of state-controlled media. This can lead people to question institutional messaging or seek information from alternative sources, which may not always be reliable.

While this example reflects his specific area of work, it also highlights a broader point. Experiences of healthcare systems, public institutions, and media can shape how different communities respond to health information.

For example, some groups may have experienced historical inequalities, exclusion, or discrimination in healthcare because of factors such as race, gender, or sexuality. Others may have grown up in contexts where media and public institutions were not consistently trusted, including settings with high levels of state control. These experiences can affect trust and influence how information is received and acted on.

At the same time, information may be shared through different channels. Community networks, social media, and word of mouth can play a significant role, meaning that by the time official guidance is encountered, it may be competing with existing narratives.

Sasan also acknowledges that some communities may have had limited exposure to consistent public health systems. In these cases, health messaging may feel distant or not directly relevant, which can lead to disengagement rather than concern.

It is not always possible to fully reflect the perspective of every group or individual. However, this makes it even more important to actively seek out different perspectives, work with trusted voices, and involve people in the development and testing of information where possible.

For health information creators, this highlights the importance of going beyond translation. Building trust requires familiarity, cultural understanding, and communication that reflects people’s lived experiences.

Helping people understand risk

Clear communication can help people make sense of emerging health risks, but it needs to be specific.

Both clinicians emphasise the importance of showing where a risk sits on a pathway. A virus identified in animals, a small number of human cases, and sustained human transmission are very different situations. Making this distinction clear helps people understand what, if anything, they need to do.

Dr Azmain highlights the importance of matching message to action. Where urgent action is needed, this should be direct and clear. Where risk is low or uncertain, reassurance should be paired with explanation so people understand why concern is not required.

Sasan adds that plain language plays a key role. Explaining terms such as “no evidence of human-to-human transmission” in everyday language helps people interpret information without needing specialist knowledge.

He also highlights the importance of trusted messengers. People are more likely to understand and act on information when it comes from a source they recognise, whether that is a clinician, a community figure, or someone who speaks their language and understands their context.

For PIF members, this can also mean drawing on shared expertise. The PIF community provides a space to sense-check emerging issues, share insight, and learn from others with relevant expertise.

For trusted health information creators, this may also mean responding when confusion arises. This could involve providing clear explanations, correcting misunderstandings, or helping people interpret what new findings do and do not mean in practice, particularly when headlines are driving concern.

Evidence from PIF’s own research, alongside work by organisations such as the Menopause Charity, highlights the importance of how this is done. Repeating myths or amplifying misleading headlines, even when correcting them, can reinforce misunderstanding. Clear, timely contextualised explanations are more effective in supporting understanding.

Together, these approaches help people not only access information, but understand what it means for them.

What this means for trusted health information

Headlines about emerging health risks are likely to continue, particularly as research develops and is shared more quickly.

For trusted health information creators, the focus is not on responding to every story, but on helping people understand what it means. This includes providing clear context, communicating uncertainty honestly, and supporting people to make sense of risk.

It also means helping people build the confidence to question and interpret what they see. Supporting users to think critically, check information, and understand risk is an ongoing process that can be developed over time across different platforms.

By doing this consistently, organisations can help build understanding and trust, even in a complex and fast-moving information environment.

In January 2025, Dr Azmain created a public-facing video in response to circulating mis and dis information about HMPV virus. You can watch his video here.

Join the fight against misinformation

The Patient Information Forum is actively working to fight misinformation. 

Find out more about joining our community of Trusted Information Creators here