Trust in Health Information Sources and Perceived Climate Change Health Risks: Evidence from the 2022 and 2024 Health Information National Trends Survey

Technical Summary: Trust in Health Information Sources and Perceived Climate Change Health Risks

Problem Statement
While scientific consensus establishes climate change as a critical threat to human health, public perception of these risks remains uneven and often skeptical. The paper posits that trust in experts and government institutions is a pivotal factor in how individuals interpret climate-related health information. Despite the known link between trust and risk perception, empirical research examining how this relationship evolves over time—particularly in the post-pandemic information environment—remains limited. Most existing studies rely on single cross-sectional snapshots, failing to capture the dynamic nature of public trust and its shifting influence on climate-health beliefs.

Methodology
This study utilizes nationally representative data from two independent cross-sectional waves of the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS): HINTS 6 (2022) and HINTS 7 (2024).

• Sample: The final analytic samples consisted of 4,272 respondents (2022) and 4,900 respondents (2024), comprising civilian, non-institutionalized U.S. adults aged 18 and older.
• Dependent Variable: Perception of climate change harm, measured by a single item ("How much do you think climate change will harm your health?") and dichotomized to distinguish those perceiving any personal health harm from those perceiving none.
• Independent Variables: Trust in health information from three sources: scientists, doctors, and government health agencies. These were measured on a 4-point scale and treated as predictors.
• Covariates: Sociodemographic factors including age, sex, race/ethnicity, education, household income, and geographic region.
• Statistical Analysis: Weighted logistic regression analyses were conducted using R (version 4.5.1) with survey weights and jackknife replicate weights to ensure nationally representative estimates and bias-corrected variance. The analysis proceeded in three stages: (1) modeling demographic predictors for 2024; (2) adding trust variables to the 2024 model; and (3) analyzing pooled 2022–2024 data with interaction terms between trust variables and survey waves to detect temporal shifts.

Key Results

1. Sociodemographic Correlates: In the 2024 data, significant demographic patterns emerged. Women, younger adults (18–34), and racial/ethnic minorities (Hispanic, non-Hispanic Black, and non-Hispanic Asian) were significantly more likely to perceive climate change as a health threat compared to men, older adults, and non-Hispanic White respondents. Geographically, residents of the South expressed significantly lower concern than those in the Northeast. Income and education levels were not significant predictors.
2. Role of Institutional Trust:
   • Government Health Agencies: Trust in government health agencies was the strongest and most consistent predictor of perceived climate-related health harm. Higher levels of trust corresponded to substantially greater odds of perceiving harm (e.g., those with "a lot" of trust had nearly 5 times the odds of perceiving harm compared to those with "no trust"). This relationship remained stable across both survey waves.
   • Scientists: Trust in scientists showed a positive association with perceived harm, though the effect was weaker than that of government agencies. Notably, the study found exploratory evidence of attenuation in this relationship between 2022 and 2024. Specifically, the association between "some" trust in scientists and perceived harm was significantly stronger in 2022 than in 2024, suggesting a potential weakening of scientific trust as a driver of risk perception in the post-pandemic period.
   • Doctors: Trust in doctors was not a significant predictor of perceived climate-related health harm in either wave.

Key Contributions

• Temporal Analysis: By comparing two distinct cross-sectional waves (2022 and 2024), the study provides rare evidence of how the link between trust and climate-health perception may be shifting over time, specifically highlighting a potential decline in the influence of moderate trust in scientists.
• Differentiation of Trust Sources: The research distinguishes between the predictive power of different institutional sources, identifying government health agencies as the primary driver of risk perception, while finding that the traditionally trusted source of doctors does not significantly predict climate-health concerns.
• Demographic Stratification: The study reaffirms that demographic identities (age, sex, race, region) continue to shape baseline beliefs about climate health risks, independent of trust levels.

Significance and Claims
The paper concludes that institutional trust plays a central role in shaping public understanding of climate-related health risks. It claims that trust in government health agencies is foundational for public acceptance of climate-health information. The findings suggest that while trust in scientists remains relevant, its influence may be becoming less consistent or context-dependent, particularly for those with moderate levels of trust.

The authors argue that these results highlight the necessity for public health communicators and policymakers to prioritize building and maintaining credibility with government health agencies. Furthermore, the study suggests that communication strategies must be tailored to address the specific skepticism of groups with lower institutional trust, such as older adults and residents of the Southern United States. The paper posits that integrating climate-health messaging into clinical settings (via doctors) remains an underutilized opportunity, given the current lack of predictive power of doctor trust in this specific domain. Ultimately, the study asserts that fostering trust in authoritative health institutions is essential for mobilizing behavioral and policy support aligned with scientific evidence regarding climate change.