Under the Influence: Fertility, Advertising and Social Media

The most recent event from PET (the Progress Educational Trust) brought together a panel of experts to discuss how people's understanding of (in)fertility is increasingly shaped by advertising, apps, influencers and social media, and why this makes it difficult to separate facts from misinformation.

The event was hosted by Sarah Norcross, director of PET. In her opening address, she pointed out that it was National Fertility Awareness Week, when social media feeds can become filled with overwhelming amounts of (in)fertility content. It felt like quite an appropriate time, she said, to be having this discussion.

'Social media and influencers can have a dual impact on fertility patients,' said Norcross. 'On the one hand, they're offering emotional support, medical advice or education, whilst simultaneously driving anxiety, unrealistic expectations, and perhaps pedalling misinformation.'

The first speaker was Dr Deborah Cohen, a science journalist, author and visiting senior fellow at the London School of Economics, whose latest book 'Bad Influence: How the Internet Hijacked Our Health' documents how the internet became a dominating source of health information.

Dr Cohen explained how doctors are no longer 'gatekeepers' of medical knowledge, as patients can easily find answers for themselves online. But these online platforms are ultimately 'designed to sell and entertain', she said, and truth may come at the expense of making content that is most likely to 'go viral'.

When it comes to women's health, she explained, patients may feel poorly served due to underfunded research and difficulty accessing services such as fertility and contraception clinics. This gap in health provision then gets filled with online content, which can provide 24/7 access to answers and validation. While this access can feel empowering, said Dr Cohen, it can also be exploitative, as patients may be sold interventions which lack evidence.

The next speaker was Dr Josie Hamper, a research associate in health geography at King's College London, who has spent over 12 years researching patients' experiences of using online platforms as sources of fertility information.

Dr Hamper's research shows that users seeking (in)fertility information may start by interacting with an isolated digital tool, but quickly become 'embedded' in a web of interconnected sources, such as apps, newsletters, podcasts and targeted adverts. This feeds into a wider culture where the commercialisation of fertility treatment has become normalised, so users are also exposed to public advertisements for fertility products, alongside what they're seeing on their personal devices.

Fertility apps and social media algorithms, which are personalised to the user, can act as a 'direct marketing channel' to people who are planning a pregnancy, she said. Users are 'bombarded' with fertility information that comes to have an 'intimate presence' in their lives and can be hard to pull away from.

The next panellist to speak was Dr Kuga Vigneswaran, a consultant gynaecologist and subspecialist in reproductive medicine and surgery at King's Fertility in London.

Dr Vigneswaran presented the findings of a study in which he analysed all the social media posts that mentioned 'fertility' or 'infertility' and had been published on Instagram and X in a single week. Of 939 posts, he found that only two met the bar for what he considered to be accurate, credible, high-quality information that was easy to understand. Nearly half of the posts intended to 'educate' the user came from people with a significant conflict of interest, such as selling a related product or service.

Current regulations on social media platforms make it difficult to filter out inaccurate information, he said, so users should look for evidence of credible sources and question the intentions of the content creator. His advice to users was to ask themselves three questions when interpreting a social media post: Who wrote this? Where's the evidence? Are they selling something?

Professor Cathy Herbrand, deputy director of the Centre for Reproduction Research at De Montfort University, spoke next. Like Dr Vigneswaran, she also did a study which analysed social media posts, but focused on those relating to expanded carrier screening (ECS) – a test that checks for recessive genetic variants linked to inherited conditions that could be passed on to their future children.

Professor Herbrand found that, despite ECS being portrayed by content creators as a test that increased an individual's reproductive options, these options were often not presented in a balanced way. Having IVF with genetic testing and only transferring embryos unaffected by genetic conditions was typically presented as the primary option. Meanwhile, alternatives such as using a donor, considering adoption or preparing to welcome a child with a genetic condition were rarely mentioned.

When content creators emphasise certain aspects of a medical intervention while leaving out key details, users can be left with a misleading picture of the risks and benefits. For instance, in Professor Herbrand's study, social media posts often emphasised the severity of genetic conditions which could be picked up by ECS, whilst rarely acknowledging that the real odds of a child being affected were very small. The emphasis on severe cases 'fuels anxiety' in the user, she said.

The final speaker was Professor Tim Child, associate professor of reproductive medicine at the University of Oxford and chair of the Scientific and Clinical Advances Advisory Committee at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

He outlined some of the psychological reasons why misinformation thrives. One is that people are more likely to believe simple, emotional messages, and social media rewards user engagement over content accuracy. There is also 'confirmation bias', where users seek information that aligns with their fears or hopes. And this information can become deeply entrenched in users' minds through the 'illusory truth effect', where sheer repetition of ideas over time increases their believability.

It can be difficult to know which voices to trust, since there are so many 'self-appointed experts' on social media, said Professor Child. He signposted viewers to some trustworthy resources, such as the HFEA website, which has a traffic light system that rates fertility treatment add-ons according to the quality of evidence of their effectiveness. He also pointed to NHS patient resources as a reliable source, as well as online content produced by clinicians and trusted voices in fertility education.

He concluded by saying that social media isn't going away and that clinicians must adapt to it. The role of clinicians, he said, is to empower patients with clarity, and not to judge them for believing misleading content that they have seen online.

After their presentations, the speakers answered questions from the audience, including whether social media can be a force for good. Dr Cohen responded by saying that social media can be positive in providing a space where patients can connect with like-minded people and access a supportive community.

Another audience member asked the panellists to describe the one change they would like to see happen. Professor Herbrand said it would be helpful if content creators were obliged to flag posts containing health information that is not evidence-based, though Professor Child said that it would be difficult, in practice, for creators to decide whether or not this applies to them. He added that he would like to see more online health content made by people with relevant credentials. Dr Hamper said that patients should be signposted to evidence-based sources of information such as the NHS website, which can provide a 'counter-narrative' to health content on social media.

In his closing remarks, Dr Vigneswaran urged medical professionals to embrace online platforms and use their knowledge to help combat health misinformation:

'I would encourage more people in the [medical] profession not to turn a blind eye to this,' he said. 'The more we do, the more we can dilute the misinformation out there.'

---

PET is grateful to IBSA for supporting this event.

Register for these upcoming PET events:

• Risk Assessment: The Dangers of Creating a Family via Unregulated Donation, taking place online this month on Wednesday 25 November 2026 – register here.
• AI and Automation in Fertility and Genomics: Pipeline? Or Pipe Dream?, the PET Annual Conference, taking place in central London next month on Wednesday 9 December 2026 – register here.