Why Pathology Remains Australia's Most Trusted Health Information Source

We live in an age of unprecedented access to health information. A quick search can surface thousands of articles about any symptom, condition, or wellness trend. Yet Australian research reveals a troubling paradox: the more health information we access online, the less reliable our health decisions become.

A comprehensive study commissioned by Healius Limited found that more than 50% of Australians have self-diagnosed a health condition using information sourced online. Among those who have used social media platforms for health information and advice, 53% reported experiencing negative outcomes—including misdiagnosis, worsened health, or applying an incorrect treatment.

That's not a small number. That's 1 in 2 Australians being negatively impacted by following online health advice.

Before we dismiss online health searching as reckless behaviour, it's worth understanding why people do it. The research identifies clear, practical barriers:

• Cost of appointments: 39% of women cite expense as a barrier to seeking professional care
• Difficulty getting appointments: 40% of women cite access as a primary challenge
• Long wait times: Many Australians report frustration with specialist availability

These barriers are real. When you're experiencing symptoms and can't get an appointment for weeks, the temptation to seek answers online is understandable. The intent isn't irresponsible—it's human.

But the consequences can be significant. The research included the story of a Queensland woman who self-diagnosed what she thought was a urinary tract infection, treating it at home with basic remedies. In reality, she had Group B strep disease—a condition that can be dangerous during pregnancy if not properly treated.

Here's the finding that should reshape how we think about health information: pathology results are rated the most trustworthy source of health information and advice in Australia.

The numbers are striking:

• 95% of Australians have a high or moderate level of trust in pathology results
• 65% report HIGH trust—more than any other health information source

This trust isn't misplaced. When a pathology report shows your TSH is 2.4 mIU/L, that's a measurement—not an interpretation, not a prediction, not a wellness score. It's objective data generated by NATA-accredited laboratories using standardised, reproducible methods.

The research also identifies a crucial gap: "What is missing is the time to talk through the results with healthcare professionals."

This insight captures the core tension in modern healthcare. People trust pathology. They want evidence-based information. But the system often makes it difficult to:

1. Access testing in the first place
2. Discuss results in meaningful detail with a doctor

The result? People Google their symptoms before their appointment, then Google their pathology results afterward—often without the clinical context needed to interpret them correctly.

This is why direct-access pathology exists—not to replace medical care, but to address the access gap that drives people toward unreliable alternatives.

When you can access the most trusted form of health information without a 6-week wait for an appointment, several things change:

You get data, not speculation. Instead of wondering whether your fatigue might be thyroid-related (and spiralling through forums of conflicting opinions), you can measure your actual TSH, T3, and T4 levels. That's information your doctor can use to assess thyroid function in the context of your symptoms and health history.

You arrive informed, not anxious. Walking into a doctor's appointment with objective data changes the conversation. Rather than trying to describe vague symptoms, you can discuss specific findings. Your doctor can focus on interpretation and next steps rather than starting from scratch.

You complement medical care, not compete with it. Direct-access pathology should function as a bridge to better doctor conversations, not a replacement for medical care. The goal is preparation for more productive appointments—not self-diagnosis.

The research findings suggest a clear hierarchy for health information:

1. Most trusted: Pathology results (objective, evidence-based, reproducible)
2. Essential: Professional interpretation from qualified healthcare practitioners
3. Supplementary: Educational resources from reputable sources
4. Unreliable: Social media health advice, unverified online forums

If you're someone who researches health topics online—and most of us are—consider what you're actually looking for. Often, it's not medical advice. It's clarity. You want to understand what's happening in your body.

Pathology can provide that clarity in a form both you and your doctor can trust.

Not all pathology tests are equal in terms of mainstream medical acceptance. At ClarityLabs, we're transparent about this:

• Guideline-backed tests (like full blood count, thyroid function, lipid profiles) are RACGP standard of care. Your doctor will know exactly what to do with these results.
• Context-dependent tests (like advanced cardiovascular markers) are recognised in subspecialty settings but may require additional clinical context.
• Research-oriented tests have limited mainstream acceptance and are intended for those interested in emerging science.

This transparency ensures you know exactly what you're getting—and what to expect from your doctor's response.

The Healius research confirms what many already sense: there's a gap between wanting reliable health information and being able to access it easily. Cost, appointment availability, and time constraints push people toward sources that may do more harm than good.

But the solution isn't to simply warn people away from searching online. The solution is to provide better alternatives.

Pathology—the most trusted form of health information—can be more accessible without sacrificing clinical quality. Direct access removes barriers while maintaining the evidence-based rigour that earns pathology its trust.

The goal isn't self-diagnosis. It's better preparation for conversations with your healthcare team. It's walking into your appointment with data in hand. It's replacing speculation with measurement.

Stop guessing. Start knowing.