The core study team consisted of five members with expertise in health communication, misinformation studies, community engagement, information science and analytics, medicine, sociology, SRH, gender, and human rights. A project advisory group was convened and consulted in defining the scope, distributing a web survey to networks and experts, reviewing findings, and reporting results. Consultations with SRHR practitioners and policy makers, human rights experts, and digital health and health communication specialists were conducted to identify additional sources of gray literature, validate findings, and provide contextual insights on addressing SRHR misinformation.

We used the JBI (Joanna Briggs Institute) manual for evidence synthesis for the overall process of review and analysis [27]. We followed the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist [28] (Multimedia Appendix 1).

The objective was to organize and summarize available literature and inform future research on the incidence, types, and influence of SRHR misinformation in digital spaces and its effects at the individual, community, health system, law and policy, and information ecosystem levels, from a human rights perspective.

The following questions guided the scoping review: (1) What are the common types of SRHR misinformation and narratives in the digital information environment? (2) How is SRHR misinformation amplified in the digital information environment, and why or for what reasons? (3) What kind of effect does SRHR misinformation and narratives in the digital information environment have on individuals, communities, service delivery, laws, and policy?

To effectively answer these questions, we adopted the population, exposure, and outcome framework developed by the JBI [29]. The population, exposure, and outcome criteria were as follows: P (population)—research and gray literature focused on SRHR misinformation in digital information environment affecting individuals, communities, health workers, or policy makers; E (exposure)—misinformation related to SRHR topics such as contraception, fertility, abortion, maternal health, sexual health, and bodily autonomy; and O (outcomes)—impacts on decision-making, health-seeking behavior, health service delivery, community norms, laws, and policies.

The corresponding inclusion and exclusion criteria are summarized in the SRHR misinformation Table 1.

We considered qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies, commentaries, policy analyses, and gray literature in English. We searched PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, JStor, and HeinOnline databases with a search strategy presented in Multimedia Appendix 2. In addition to more traditionally used databases in information science (PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science), additional searches were also performed in JStor and HeinOnline. JStor, as Web of Science, covers humanities and social sciences, but it is more expansive, which was deemed useful to locate more papers for this study. HeinOnline covers legal and law-related materials and was included to search for current discussions of SRHR misinformation in digital spaces, as impacts on law were part of the research question.

Search terms were tested and developed iteratively from narrow to the final broader definitions to intentionally capture the diversity of studies that might otherwise not be included because they used diverse keywords and terms in relation to SRH and misinformation. We included studies and documents published and made available in the databases between January 1, 2019, and November 23, 2024.

Information environment dynamics, related regulatory, platform, and consumer protection policies, user trends, and narratives change quickly and are often first described in gray literature before scientific papers. As we wanted to capture the current discussions and evidence, and the SRHR misinformation impacts are often described in gray literature such as relevant government, UN, and nongovernmental organization reports and newspapers, we also searched Google and Google Scholar. In addition, policy and evidence reports were also suggested by key informants via a web survey on the WHO website that was open for 6 weeks, between November 25, 2024, and January 5, 2025, and advertised through WHO SRHR networks and social media.

Two investigators searched and screened the documents by titles and abstracts, and then reviewed the full texts of potential documents to include. The screening by titles and abstracts focused on excluding and marking as irrelevant the studies that did not relate to SRHR misinformation and digital spaces, were in a language other than English, or that were books, book chapters, or theses. The subsequent full-text review focused on applying all exclusion and inclusion criteria to the remaining studies. Conflicts were resolved through consensus between the two investigators. Records were managed in the Covidence systematic review software [30]. We excluded any documents not in English, reviews and meta-analyses, and those that did not focus on misinformation in the digital information environment or misinformation in SRHR.

A data extraction form was developed to extract data from included studies. The form included fields to capture information about the study or document (authors, title, journal or publisher, and country or region) and document or study characteristics (study type, digital setting, and human rights standards). It also captured misinformation characteristics (topics and types), underlying drivers and attributions, digital channel, impacts of misinformation, affected populations (by social group, identity, or vulnerability), legal and policy implications, interventions and solutions, and additional notes.

We conducted a thematic content analysis using narrative descriptions of the extracted data, and mapped it against categories of human rights standards, namely (1) equality and nondiscrimination, (2) Availability, Accessibility, Acceptability, and Quality (AAAQ), (3) informed decision-making, (4) privacy and confidentiality, (5) participation and inclusion, and (6) accountability. The sources for the human rights standards applied include international and regional human rights treaties, the general comments and recommendations issued by the UN human rights treaty-monitoring bodies, international and regional court decisions, and international and regional consensus documents. The application of these to the area of SRH was made on the basis of WHO guidelines, taking “Ensuring Human Rights in Contraceptive Information and Services: WHO Guidance and Recommendations” (2014) [31] as a key reference and point of departure. We organized the results by levels of the socioecological model: individual, community, service delivery and health system, law and policy, and information ecosystem. The work was performed by two analysts and reviewed by two other reviewers.

This study did not involve patients or the general public. Their input was not sought in the scoping review design, interpretation of results, or drafting or editing this document.

This study was a scoping review of publicly available literature and documents, and ethical approval was not required.

We retrieved 3208 studies from databases and an additional 78 documents from gray literature sources. After removing duplicates, 3100 records remained for screening of titles and abstracts, of which 336 were retrieved for full-text screening. A total of 82 records were excluded for the following reasons: not focused on SRHR misinformation (n=36), not focused on misinformation in digital spaces (n=27), was a preprint or only had an abstract available (n=8), unavailable to retrieve (n=6), review or meta-analysis (n=4), outside of time period for inclusion (n=1). In total, 254 studies and documents were included in the final review. The study selection process is outlined in the PRISMA-ScR flow diagram in Figure 1.

This scoping review maps and describes existing literature on misinformation in SRHRs, suggesting that it is rarely limited to isolated myths, individual misunderstandings, or politicized topics. Instead, the evidence reviewed points to SRHR misinformation as being entangled with the broader social, political, and digital systems through which health information is searched for, interpreted, shared, and acted upon. Traditional responses to health misinformation have often focused on correcting false beliefs through education, counter-messaging, or fact-checking, which are based on communication frameworks and exclude systems thinking and information environment, approaches, and analysis through human rights standards. The literature reviewed highlights concerns that such approaches may be insufficient, particularly given the disproportionate impacts on underserved communities. Several studies suggest that SRHR misinformation can operate within wider structures of inequality, stigma, and power, and in some cases, may be deliberately used to undermine reproductive autonomy, challenge evidence-based care, or reinforce discriminatory ideologies.

This scoping review focused on the five years since 2019 specifically because the digital information environment, architectures, algorithms, platform moderation policies, as well as socioeconomic dynamics have been changing rapidly, also in relation to how we understand misinformation and the wider impacts of the information environment on health behaviors. Capturing the recent experience of users seeking health information, support, and care in digital spaces more closely reflects the digital realities of today. During this time, users online have experienced a shift to reduced moderation on many large platforms [26,283] and related polarization of conversations in digital spaces [284,285], the impacts of the pandemic on straining health systems health promotion programs and their capacity to address the information environment [20], as well as rapidly evolving ways users seek information, support and companionship through synthetic companions and AI-powered tools and interfaces. The themes coming out of this review show that this changing sociotechnical landscape is both concentrating harms in groups that seek SRHR-related support and care online, and at the same time, the features of the information environment are used by communities to exercise autonomy in relation to how they access, discuss, and act on health information.

These insights are aligned with the growing shift in the broader health misinformation research and practice field, where scholars have called for moving beyond individual-level interventions to engage with the systemic, emotional, and relational dynamics that shape how people encounter and respond to information. The results of the mapping underscore that SRHR misinformation is not an exception but a critical and often overlooked example of these wider dynamics.

This paper is the first of three planned publications based on this scoping review’s dataset and focuses on cross-mapping information science and misinformation research with human rights principles. The overall purpose of this work is to bring the research and advocacy community across different fields together to improve human rights protection and promotion in the context of SRHR misinformation in digital spaces. Future papers will detail the attributes of SRHR misinformation and harm, and interventions reported in the included studies, while the third will be the result of a consultation with human rights scholars and advocates on improving concepts and monitoring frameworks of the harmful impact misinformation has on SRHR protection and promotion.

What makes SRHR misinformation distinct from misinformation in other health areas (such as vaccine-preventable diseases, cancer, or emergency preparedness and response) is its intrinsically gendered and politicized nature. SRHR is deeply connected to individual autonomy, social identity, and cultural norms. Misinformation in this space is not only shaped by stigma and taboo, but it often also reinforces them. It is commonly weaponized to control reproductive choices, restrict access to care, and limit public discourse on gender and sexuality. Unlike many other health domains, SRHR misinformation often targets and impacts people differently based on their gender identity, sexual orientation, reproductive status, or age, reinforcing longstanding power imbalances.

Increasingly in most contexts, the search for SRHR information begins and ends online. Many individuals, particularly those in marginalized or stigmatized communities, seek answers to sensitive questions via the likes of search engines, mobile apps, social media, AI agents and tools, and private messaging platforms. Due to its intimate, gendered, and relational nature, SRHR misinformation does not just distort facts. It also shapes how people understand their rights, identities, and relationships. These characteristics make SRHR topics particularly vulnerable to disinformation, where individuals, influencers, or organizations deliberately spread misleading narratives or promote unproven products and services for financial gain or political influence.

Addressing the harm from SRHR misinformation, therefore, goes beyond correcting content or narratives and requires confronting and transforming the systemic drivers, commercial incentives, and sociopolitical norms that produce and legitimize harmful information about SRHR.

The analysis in Figure 2 reflects what kinds of contextualization and value judgments are placed on the concept of misinformation in the studies included in this review. Importantly, this review reveals a wide diversity in the terminology used to describe SRHR misinformation. While the most common terms used are “misinformation” and “inaccurate,” the rest of the terms used all point to an attribute or impact of information itself, not merely its accuracy. Terms such as “misleading,” “inappropriate,” “unreliable,” “gendered disinformation,” “myths,” “incomplete,” and “harmful narratives” were used across the studies. This suggests that authors from different disciplines (eg, public health, law, or media studies) and professional groups (eg, clinicians, health educators, policy analysts, or advocates) differently interpret and frame the qualities of information, such as its accuracy, relevance, intent, and social impact. This might stem from the drivers and harms perceived as most relevant to SRHR. These conceptual differences likely shape how misinformation is approached in the literature and by advocates and may present challenges for synthesizing evidence, developing effective interventions, and creating shared standards across health topics and research disciplines. Future research must grapple with this definitional pluralism and embrace cross-disciplinary approaches that can accommodate and bridge these varied perspectives. One approach to acknowledge this diversity is to move from discussing “misinformation” to studying “information environment,” as many of the drivers and impacts, including harms, described in this paper are related to social, cognitive, and other drivers of how information is interpreted and meaning is made, rather than the accuracy of a piece of information alone.

These terminological inconsistencies also reflect a deeper fragmentation in the research, beyond language, regarding how the problem of SRHR misinformation is conceptualized and situated within broader systems. This scoping review shows that while there is growing recognition that SRHR misinformation is a public health issue, the literature remains fragmented. Most of the studies identified in this review focus on describing or measuring misinformation in specific domains or platforms (such as abortion or contraception, YouTube or X [formerly known as Twitter]), with fewer addressing the broader political, cultural, and systemic conditions that shape the production, circulation, and impact of misinformation in SRHR. This pattern mirrors wider critiques in the health misinformation research field, which caution against overly narrow, content-focused approaches that overlook the complexity of digital ecologies and information environments. As recent scholarship has argued, health misinformation is not simply a matter of individual belief or factual inaccuracy, but a relational and evolving process shaped by identity, emotion, trust, and social context [2,3,14]. Our findings underscore the need for SRHR misinformation research to engage more fully with these broader frameworks to inform more effective, equity-oriented responses.

A key contribution of this review is the application of a human rights framework to map the harms of SRHR misinformation across the socioecological model. We found that misinformation impacts multiple human rights standards, including informed decision-making, equality and nondiscrimination, availability and quality of information, services and goods, privacy, participation, and accountability. These violations occur at different levels, undermining individual autonomy, fueling stigma within communities, disrupting evidence-based service delivery, enabling discriminatory laws and population surveillance, and fostering unregulated information ecosystems that prioritize virality over veracity. This lens clarifies how SRHR misinformation is not merely a matter of faulty information, but rather that it is a matter of human rights, social justice, and systemic inequity.

Notably, this review highlights a gap in current SRHR and human rights literature and practice—while the right to SRH has long emphasized access to accurate information, it has yet to fully grapple with how information ecosystems—including ecosystem architecture, algorithmic governance, and commercial content moderation and marketing tools [24,26]—function as structural determinants of health. Digital environments now shape not only what information is available, but whose voices are amplified, whose experiences are silenced, and whose health is protected or compromised [2,14]. The failure to regulate or even acknowledge these dynamics constitutes a failure of accountability [24,26].

Understanding misinformation as ecosystemic has major implications for public health, policy, and advocacy. Health systems can no longer treat misinformation solely as a public education issue and must engage with how SRHR information is designed, curated, and circulated across digital infrastructures. This requires a shift from short-term, message-based communication and reactive debunking to proactive governance that supports digital literacy, designs inclusive information pathways, and builds social cohesion and institutional trust. SRHR advocates that communities, especially marginalized communities, must be protected from online harassment and supported to participate meaningfully in digital public spheres.

Policy makers must reaffirm access to accurate, evidence-based health information as a public good and a fundamental human right, rather than a consumer product vulnerable to manipulation. Regulatory frameworks should ensure transparency in platform algorithms, protection of privacy, and equitable access to information. Meanwhile, digital platforms must be held accountable for the role they play in facilitating and profiting from SRHR misinformation. Monitoring and addressing these harms will require collaborative efforts across sectors, including health, education, technology, and law, and must center the voices of those most affected by SRHR misinformation and information injustice.

This therefore points to several research priorities in this space. First, there is a need to move beyond cataloguing misinformation content to studying how SRHR misinformation functions within broader digital ecosystems—not only how it spreads, why it resonates with particular communities, and how trust in different sources is constructed, but also what are the “dark patterns” that propagate vulnerabilities of SRHR, the commercial determinants of SRHR misinformation, and the evolving relationships with information online that discard its tactfulness for relatability. Second, future work should explore how individuals and groups resist, reinterpret, or correct misinformation, particularly in marginalized communities, and what forms of digital literacy and social support strengthen resilience. Third, more research is needed into the interactions between misinformation, digital platform design, and regulatory policies, including how algorithmic amplification works, how the use of private user data has been monetized, and content moderation affect health-related rights. Finally, interdisciplinary inquiry should investigate how to embed human rights frameworks into technology governance, including the development of accountability indicators that assess whether information environments support or hinder the right to SRHR. These research directions are essential to inform rights-based, equity-driven strategies to counter SRHR misinformation at scale.

This scoping review has several limitations. First, our inclusion criteria restricted the search to English-language sources, which may have excluded relevant studies published in other languages. Second, by focusing exclusively on the digital information environment, we did not capture insights from offline spaces or additional media channels where SRHR misinformation might also circulate and impact communities. Third, we included only studies and documents explicitly addressing misinformation, and this approach may have overlooked research that does not focus on misinformation but on other challenges within the information ecosystem that share drivers, amplifiers, and attributes with misinformation, such as questions, concerns, information voids, hate speech, or disinformation (for promoting ideas or products for profit or influence).

The consequences of SRHR misinformation in the digital information environment include restricted bodily autonomy, compromised reproductive justice, and distorted policy environments. SRHR misinformation includes a wide spectrum of topics, platforms, and various effects and harms that infringe on human rights principles and standards. This scoping review described the multitudinous social, technological, and regulatory drivers that shape discourse about health online and the many ways individuals’ SRH and human rights are affected by it online and offline. No single level of the socioecological model is sufficient to describe the scope and effects of SRHR misinformation in the digital information environment, and solutions are also unlikely to be found at a single level.

Although this scoping review cataloged some of the effects and harms of SRHR misinformation, fuller accounting is needed to understand the cumulative effects and harms of SRHR misinformation in individuals, communities, health systems, and societies. Inspiration can be drawn from more established fields of health misinformation and behavioral science research in vaccines, cancer, and pandemic preparedness, where misinformation is a common risk to health care decisions and behaviors, and has been long studied, and impacts have been well-catalogued.

The internet will only become more ingrained in the day-to-day lives of people and their families and communities, and so, the SRHR field must evolve with this now indispensable source of information, connection, and care to help everyone realize their right to SRHR health care everywhere, including online.