Category: We Heart Health Literacy

Dear readers, let’s take a little trip together — no luggage required. We’re talking about journey maps: one of our favorite tools in the user experience (UX) and health communication toolkit.

Let’s start with the basics: What exactly is a journey map? Journey maps are visualizations that illustrate the steps people take to accomplish a task. In the world of public health and health care, journeys could include signing up for health insurance, filling a prescription, or even navigating a new diagnosis. In addition to breaking down how people get from point A to point B, journey maps help us identify roadblocks that they may encounter and emotions they may experience along the way.

Why bother mapping a journey? Because the best design starts with empathy. Journey maps are health comm game-changers because they can deepen your understanding of the challenges your audience may face. That insight can help you create more intuitive communication materials that reflect readers’ needs and experiences. A good journey map helps you step into your audience’s shoes and anticipate potential bumps in the road — confusion, frustration, maybe even dread — so you can smooth the path. As the brilliant folks at Nielsen Norman Group put it, journey maps “create a shared vision” of the user experience.

Most journey maps have 5 key ingredients in common:

• Actor (or persona): the person whose journey you’re mapping
• Scenario and expectations: the situation they’re in or task they’re trying to complete
• Journey phases: the major stages they’ll go through on their journey
• Actions, mindsets, and emotions: what they’ll do, think, and feel in each phase
• Opportunities: places where you (yes, you!) can make the experience better

You can start to gather those ingredients by learning about your audience through formative research activities like interviews, usability tests, surveys, or focus groups. The goal is to ground your map in real people’s experiences, not assumptions.

Then, the magic really happens when you bring the whole team together around a journey map. Suddenly, your developers, designers, and subject matter experts can literally see the same picture. That shared understanding of users’ experiences can help everyone make more informed choices.

Ready to start your journey (map)? Here are a few tips to guide you:

• Start simple: You don’t need fancy design software to create a journey map. Sticky notes on a wall (or a virtual whiteboard) work great.
• Co-create with your audience: Invite audiences to react to your draft map. They’ll spot gaps you never would have considered.
• Look for pain points and bright spots: In addition to pinpointing challenges, journey maps can help us identify and build on elements that are working well. Turn each opportunity for improvement into a design decision, a product feature, or a plain language edit.
• Pair with personas: A persona describes the “who” — the people you want to reach. A journey map describes the “how” — the steps they’ll take to accomplish their goal.
• Revisit often: People’s journeys evolve over time, influenced by technologies, policies, or social trends. Updating journey maps can help you track those changes and adapt your communication strategy to stay relevant.

The bottom line: Journey maps are empathy in action. They help health communicators visualize the real ups and downs of people’s experiences — and design clearer, kinder, more effective solutions.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Take a journey with CommunicateHealth to learn all about journey maps for #HealthCommunication. https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/are-we-there-yet-using-journey-maps-to-guide-health-communication/ #HealthLiteracy

Dear readers, it’s our favorite month of the year: Health Literacy Month! This month is the perfect time to reflect on how far our field has come and look ahead to the future of health literacy.

Ten years ago, health communicators focused on making patient education materials clearer and websites easier to use. As technology evolves, we’re finding new ways to meet people where they are. Today, people are asking ChatGPT for medical advice, scrolling TikTok for health hacks, and trying to make sense of the numbers on their smartwatches. Tomorrow? Who knows — maybe your fridge will remind you to drink more water (in plain language, we hope!).

Whether people get their health info from a handout, a social media post, or a holographic projection, the “why” of health literacy will stay the same: helping people feel supported, informed, and confident in their choices. But the “what” — the tactics, tools, and focus areas — will keep shifting as the information landscape evolves.

So what might the future hold? We have a few predictions.

Tech will need a health literacy upgrade

Wearables, apps, and smart devices will continue serving up streams of data, but the real challenge will be making that data meaningful. After all, “Your heart rate is normal” is a much more useful message than “72 bpm.” At the same time, generative AI will keep churning out health content at lightning speed. The future role of health literacy will be to help people discern what’s trustworthy — and to help technology elevate credible sources. And as chatbots and virtual assistants become everyday fixtures, they’ll need more than just the right answers: they’ll need plain language, cultural humility, and transparency if they want to earn people’s trust.

Trusted messengers will matter most

Even in a high-tech future, people will always look to trusted messengers for guidance. That could mean a nurse using the teach-back method, a public health leader communicating clearly during a crisis, a faith leader sharing health updates with their congregation, or family members helping each other sort through online advice. What unites all of these messengers is empathy, credibility, and the ability to make information feel usable. Technology can amplify the voices of trusted messengers, but it can’t replace them.

Systems will (hopefully) get simpler

Digital literacy has become inseparable from health literacy. After all, if you can’t log in to a patient portal, interpret your lab test results on that portal, or complete an online benefits application, you’re shut out of essential services. The challenge for the future is to make these systems intuitive, accessible, and equitable — designed for the people who rely on them, not just the organizations that run them. That means plain language, human-centered design, and ongoing testing with real users, not just check-the-box compliance.

Health literacy will keep expanding its reach

The skills we sharpen in health literacy — evaluating, interpreting, and acting on information — apply far beyond health care. They overlap with media literacy (spotting misinformation) and digital literacy (navigating online tools). Together, these literacies help people cut through the noise, decide what to trust, and take action with confidence. At its core, health literacy will keep asking the same question: How do we empower people through communication?

The future of health literacy isn’t just about clearer pamphlets or better websites (although those still matter, of course!). It’s about helping people sort, discern, and act on information in a world that’s noisier than ever. And it’s about helping technology do the same — validating and elevating trustworthy information so people don’t have to go it alone.

The bottom line: The tools of health literacy will change — from plain-language pamphlets to AI, apps, and everything in between. But the mission stays the same: to build trust, meet people where they are, and make information something people can actually use.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): This #HealthLiteracyMonth, CommunicateHealth predicts the future of #HealthLiteracy. Spoiler alert: It’s still about helping people access, understand, and use health information. Read more in this week’s post: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/the-future-of-health-literacy/

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we believe the clearest voices in health communication are often those closest to the communities they support. That’s why we were so excited to chat with Dr. Lisa Fitzpatrick, founder and CEO of Grapevine Health and the force behind the impactful video series “Dr. Lisa on the Street.” We loved hearing Dr. Lisa’s perspective on what it really means to meet people where they are — and why storytelling is one of our most powerful tools for building trust.

Dr. Lisa is an infectious disease doctor and a medical epidemiologist who’s worked in academic medicine, at Medicaid, and on the streets of cities across the U.S. Throughout her career, Dr. Lisa has worked with people from all walks of life, and many have expressed the same frustration: Clear and simple health information is hard to find! “People are craving relatable, plain language explanations — and we’re falling short,” she said. This realization inspired Dr. Lisa to start Grapevine Health, a digital health company that delivers trusted, relatable health information to underserved communities via video.

Over and over again, Dr. Lisa’s experiences have brought her back to 2 interconnected ideas: trust and trauma. These aren’t just buzzwords. They’re key factors that shape people’s ability to understand and act on health information.

“The trauma of living in poverty — of working 2 jobs, not having access to healthy food or transportation — leads people to put health care on the back burner,” she explains. And understanding is key to building trust, especially for people who are often overlooked and unsupported by public health and health care systems. One man Dr. Lisa met at a shelter for unhoused people put it plainly: “If I don’t understand you when you’re talking to me, I don’t trust you.”

This insight drives Grapevine’s work, and it’s shaped Dr. Lisa’s approach to creating content people actually want to watch. Inspired by late-night comedy bits, her video series “Dr. Lisa on the Street” started as a way to bring plain language health education to everyday people in the places where they spend time — like the bus stop, or, well, on the street! Over time, the series evolved into Grapevine Health’s broader mission to humanize health communication.

Dr. Lisa also saw the need to focus on an often-overlooked population: people with Medicaid coverage. “Medicaid is the backbone of the health care system,” she says. “But right now, it’s under attack. And the stories we hear about Medicaid are often just wrong.”  She points to common misconceptions like the belief that Medicaid is only for people who don’t want to work. In reality, Medicaid supports everyone from seniors in assisted living facilities to adults with disabilities — and it helps keep essential institutions like rural hospitals open.

“We need to tell stories — not just of Medicaid beneficiaries, but of families, providers, and communities who rely on Medicaid,” Dr. Lisa says. “That’s how we counter the false narratives. That’s how we build understanding.”

Dr. Lisa doesn’t shy away from naming what’s broken. Too often, she says, people approach health communication like a box to check, sticking with the same strategies without asking if their messages are actually reaching people. Her advice to fellow health communicators? Get out of the building. Talk to real people. And avoid the buzzwords — unless you’re ready to back them up with action. “Meeting people where they are isn’t a phrase. It’s a practice,” says Dr. Lisa. “And we can’t afford to get it wrong.”

The bottom line: To craft trauma-informed health messages that build understanding and trust, take a page from Dr. Lisa’s book. Talk to real people in the places where they live, work, and play.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): This week, CommunicateHealth sat down with Dr. Lisa Fitzpatrick from @GrapevineHealth about building trust in #HealthComm — and what it really means to meet people where they are. Check out our conversation: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/voices-from-the-field-lisa-fitzpatrick-grapevine-health/ #HealthLiteracy

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we’re always excited to see how other organizations approach writing for equity and inclusion. That’s why we’re so excited to see this new resource from the FrameWorks Institute: Communicating Now: Framing for Health Equity, a toolkit to help community-based and public health organizations communicate effectively about eliminating health disparities.

Especially during these, shall we say… challenging times for public health professionals and initiatives, having this type of resource makes our jobs as health communicators just a little bit easier. This resource is organized by “When you need to…” scenarios that reflect real situations our colleagues face day-to-day. Not only that, but there is explicit reference to systemic racism and how discrimination impacts health outcomes, which is particularly refreshing in today’s crusade against “DEI” and the ever-growing list of polarizing words in research, proposals, and consumer materials.

Some of our favorite features of the Communicating Now framework are:

• “Why this matters for health equity” callouts that clearly explain how each recommended tactic can support a broader goal of addressing health equity
• “Grab-and-go language” that equips professionals with phrasing they can use immediately
• Step-by-step examples to guide developing tailored communication materials
• Tangible do and don’t examples to help everyone — no matter their communication expertise — successfully apply the guidance and avoid common pitfalls

Bottom line: Working to achieve health equity is a key component of public health, and it’s not going anywhere ❤️. The Communicating Now toolkit is a great resource to add to your toolbox — we hope you’ll check it out and share with your networks!

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): This week, CommunicateHealth is chatting about the FrameWorks Institute’s Communicating Now toolkit. If you haven’t heard about it yet, it’s a fantastic resource for #PublicHealth communicators that’s focused on health equity. Learn more: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/things-we-heart-frameworks-institutes-communicating-now-toolkit/ #HealthComm #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthEquity

Greetings, dear readers! For the latest edition of Voices From the Field, we sat down with Kinetra Joseph, Senior Advisor for Social and Behavior Change Programs at the CDC Foundation. The CDC Foundation is an independent nonprofit — established by Congress — that helps the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the public health system save and improve lives by building partnerships to protect communities everywhere.

For this post, we’re bringing you a true interview-style piece — not live, but unfiltered! We hope you enjoy.❤️

One of the CDC Foundation’s most visible campaigns from the past few years is Live to the Beat, which focuses on promoting heart health for Black adults (and we’re so honored we got to work on this campaign with you). What made Live to the Beat special?

The process of creating the campaign wasn’t special — the fact that we did it was special. I’ve noticed there’s been fewer true social marketing campaigns over the past few years than when I started doing this work — meaning, campaigns that include audience research and a full marketing mix.

Tell us more!

Live to the Beat is a social marketing campaign. That means it uses marketing principles, like knowing and engaging your audience, and combines them with behavior change theory to encourage people to change their behaviors for the better. Social marketing campaigns can help us reach public health goals — like reducing chronic disease or preventing drunk driving. They do this by deploying the full marketing mix — product, price, place, and promotion — to create campaigns that make healthier choices more accessible and appealing.

In public health, our focus lately has been more on changing systems and policies — and there are good reasons for that. But systemic change takes time, it’s a long-term investment. Social marketing can reach a large, movable part of the audience and be a powerful tool for change.

What challenges did you face when planning and implementing Live to the Beat? And how did you overcome them?

Part of the way through, we realized we weren’t nailing it — we had to make a change because our messages weren’t resonating with our audience. We had to commit to prioritizing the audience’s culture and values — we needed to tap into something that would help us position our message (prioritize your heart health) at the core of our audience.

When we tested our campaign messages with audience members, what we heard was: “You can’t just tell us what to do, no matter how well you say it.” We had to find something that resonated with people’s lived experience and acknowledge their frustrations with what we were telling them — it’s not that people weren’t aware of what they should do. It’s that they were facing barriers that made heart-healthy behaviors difficult to execute.

What advice do you have for health communicators who are trying to create a social marketing campaign and find that their message isn’t landing with the audience?

My best advice is to both question your own assumptions and let the audience guide you. Focus on the reasons why you’re doing what you’re doing and commit to doing it right — even if that means diverging from your original plan.

Follow where the audience leads you and adjust based on what you learn along the way. Ask yourself why you believe a certain strategy will work, then go back to the audience — their data, feedback, and lived experiences — to test those beliefs. Keep asking “why” until you uncover the deeper insights: why a behavior feels difficult, why a barrier seems overwhelming, why a healthy choice isn’t winning against the competition, or why a particular motivator resonates. Be willing to revisit the data and adjust your approach as often as needed until you land on the insight that truly answers those questions.

How have social marketing campaigns changed over the past years? And how do you see them evolving?

The information environment has certainly changed. Audiences are being bombarded with information, so it’s more challenging to cut through the noise. At the same time, we have more tools at our disposal to reach people. The rise of direct-to-audience marketing channels — like social media, email, and text — and the explosion of user-generated and user-owned content have been game changers. These channels not only let us reach audiences directly but also allow us to better track and measure our impact. Partnering with trusted messengers and influencers offers another way to make our messages more relatable, credible, and likely to break through the clutter.

What tips do you have for working with influencers?

Think outside the box. Trusted messengers don’t always have to be experts in the health issue you’re addressing with your campaign, they just need to have a rapport with the audience. For Live to the Beat, we worked with a number of trusted messengers that didn’t have a health background — for example, we partnered with DJ Jazzy Jeff to throw a virtual dance party to launch the campaign.

It’s also important to think about what’s in it for them. Set aside some budget to create motivation. It doesn’t always have to be cash-in-hand — for example, you can use events as a space for influencers to create content that they can share with followers to add to their brand.

Videos are also so much easier to produce now, and that’s a huge opportunity for social marketing. An influencer can take a video with their smartphone and share it, and it’s likely going to be more successful than a highly produced campaign video (and a lot cheaper).

The bottom line: Today’s health communicators have many tools at their disposal to promote behavior change. The key is to think outside the box, follow your audience’s lead — and every once in a while, get down on the dance floor.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): CommunicateHealth sat down with CDC Foundation’s Kinetra Joseph to talk about how social marketing campaigns can promote behavior change. Check out this conversation: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/voices-from-the-field-kinetra-joseph-cdc-foundation/ #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm

Communicating about the results of scientific research studies is a huge part of a health communicator’s job. After all, research is how we learn new things — like what’s causing diseases and what works to treat them (and what doesn’t). We’ve written in the past about how clear communication can make research better. But lately, one question that’s been on our minds here at We ❤️ Health Literacy HQ is this: How do we know whether we can trust research results?

First, the basics: Research studies come in many shapes. Experimental research involves signing up participants to try a new treatment, new device, or other intervention and studying its effects (think clinical trials). Observational research, on the other hand, studies the effects of what people are doing in their daily lives (without introducing an intervention). And systematic reviews look at all the research that already exists on a subject to draw new conclusions based on more data.

No matter the type of study, the same rule applies: not all research is created equal. So let’s talk about how to spot the good stuff — and avoid getting tripped up by pseudoscience.

Ask yourself: What’s the point?

Before diving into the methods, take a step back:

• Why did the researchers do this study?
• Who will benefit from the results?
• Who funded it — and could that funder have a stake in the results?

Pro tip: Always be on the lookout for hidden agendas. A soda company funding a study about the health benefits of soda? We’re side-eyeing that.

Check the publishing details.

Legit studies usually show up in peer-reviewed journals — meaning experts reviewed the study before it was published. If a study shows up on a random blog or was posted to an unreputable site without peer review? Probably best to keep scrolling.

Peek at the authors.

Yes, we’re encouraging a little light Googling. Ask:

• Do the authors have relevant credentials or experience in the topic area?
• Have they published other studies before?
• Are they transparent about any potential conflicts of interest? For example, it could be a conflict of interest if the authors have personal or financial ties to the group funding the study.

Dig into the methods.

Now for the nerdy part (which we ❤️):

• Is the study’s methodology clearly explained? Could another researcher follow their methods and get the same results?
• Did they use the right study design to answer their question?
• Did the researchers use appropriate statistical methods?

And while you’re at it: yes, it’s okay to double-check the citations. Fake or misused citations are a thing, unfortunately.

Who were the participants?

We always want to know:

• Was the study sample representative of the people the researchers are trying to serve? If a study only looked at, say, 10 people from 1 town — and it’s claiming results that apply to everyone everywhere — that’s a red flag.
• Did researchers clearly explain the purpose, risks, benefits, and right to withdrawal to the participants? (Psst: this is called informed consent!)
• Were the participants fairly compensated for their time?

Last but not least: the conclusions.

Even if everything else checks out, make sure the conclusions make sense:

• Are the results backed up by the data?
• Do the conclusions seem reasonable and realistic?
• Did they address possible bias?

Remember: if the results sound too good to be true or promise a miracle cure, it’s worth taking a closer look. And when in doubt? Ask a friendly neighborhood researcher (or your favorite health literacy team) for a second opinion.

The bottom line: Spot the difference between trustworthy research studies and ones that don’t quite hold up by asking a few key questions about a study’s purpose, authors, methods, and conclusions.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Not all #research is created equal! CommunicateHealth shares tips to spot the difference between trustworthy research studies and ones that don’t quite hold up: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/what-makes-a-reliable-research-study/ #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy headquarters, we know that conducting research with your audiences is an excellent way to learn about their beliefs, values, and preferences. And as health communicators, we can use those insights to help us shape our messages.

But moderating a research session can be intimidating. That’s especially true if you’re asking research participants about emotionally charged issues — like a serious illness or a traumatic experience — or potentially controversial health topics. That’s why this week, we’re adding to our toolkit of tips for conducting research on sensitive topics.

Try these strategies for moderating research sessions about sensitive topics in a way that keeps the conversation productive and respectful:

• Choose the right format. Consider whether your topic is better suited to a one-on-one conversation (also called an in-depth interview) or a focus group. Focus groups might work well if everyone in the group has a shared experience — like having the same diagnosis. But for polarizing topics — like research about vaccine hesitancy — there may be passionate disagreement among focus group members that could derail the conversation. In those cases, in-depth interviews may be a better fit.
• Acknowledge up front that you’ll be discussing a sensitive subject. Taking a moment to recognize that the conversation may be difficult can help your participants feel more comfortable and break the ice. Keep it simple — you could say something like “I know this is a sensitive subject, and I appreciate you being willing to talk with me about it.”
• Let participants know it’s okay to skip questions. At the start of the session, let participants know that they can choose not to answer a question if they’re uncomfortable with it — and remind them throughout the conversation.
• Make space — and time — for difficult conversations. When asking about a sensitive topic, participants may share traumatic or deeply personal experiences. It’s important to create space for participants to tell their story. Consider building extra time into the session — for example, if you expect it to take 45 minutes to get through your questions, schedule an hour or more for the session. And be sure to acknowledge what a participant shares — you can simply say “thank you for sharing your experience with me.”
• Read the room and be ready to pivot. Remind participants that they can take a break, especially if you notice a change in the way they speak or in their body language. And be ready to end a session early if the participant is in too much distress or if the conversation is no longer productive. Keep in mind that some participants may not be comfortable asking to stop a session early, so as the moderator, it’s important to be aware of your participant’s emotional state and be careful to do no harm.
• Keep research teams small. If possible, try to limit the research team to just a moderator, or a moderator and a notetaker. Speaking to just 1 or 2 people can help a participant feel more comfortable sharing about their personal experiences. If you’re conducting research virtually, it may also help to ask the notetaker to keep their camera off.
• Remember that moderators need breaks too. Conducting research on sensitive topics can be emotionally taxing for you, too. Give yourself time to decompress after a session, and try not to schedule too many sessions a day.

The bottom line: When moderating research sessions about sensitive topics, it’s our responsibility to help research participants feel comfortable and respected. By prioritizing empathy, being flexible, and planning ahead, we can make sure conversations are productive and insightful.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): When conducting research about emotionally charged topics, it’s important to make sure conversations are respectful and productive. CommunicateHealth is here with tips for moderating research sessions about sensitive topics: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/moderating-research-sessions-about-sensitive-topics/ #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we often turn to trusted theoretical models to help us understand how and why people change behaviors. Health communication theories provide a roadmap or blueprint for better understanding your audiences, the factors that influence them, and their behaviors. In practice, theory can help us identify or narrow down an audience, plan health information campaigns, and inform outreach strategy.

For today’s post, we’ve gathered a few of our favorite health behavior and health comm theories.

• Health Belief Model is one of the most widely used theories in the field of health comm. It explains how people’s beliefs about a disease can motivate them to take action to prevent, get screened for, or manage the disease. This includes how people think and feel about their risk of getting the disease, how serious it is, the benefits of taking action, and the barriers they might face. Understanding these beliefs can help you craft messages that address people’s concerns and motivate them to take steps to protect their health.
• Stages of Change theory (also known as the Transtheoretical Model) asserts that behavior change is a process, not an event. According to this theory, a person attempting to change a behavior moves through 5 stages: Precontemplation, Contemplation, Preparation, Action, and Maintenance. Recognizing what stage your audience is in can help you tailor messages and interventions to meet them where they are.
• Theory of Planned Behavior states that a person’s behavior depends on how they assess 3 factors: behavioral beliefs (What’s going to happen if I do this?), normative beliefs (What will others think about it?), and control beliefs (Am I going to be able to do it?). Using this model can help you design interventions that shift people’s intentions by addressing their beliefs, social norms, and perceived control.
• Diffusion of Innovations addresses how ideas, products, and social practices that are perceived as “new” spread throughout a society, or from one society to another. Understanding these dynamics can help you better promote your program or intervention.
• Extended Parallel Process Model explains that health risk messages tend to get people thinking about 2 things: threat and efficacy. According to this theory, how we perceive threat (How likely is it that something bad will happen?) and efficacy (Is there anything I can do to prevent it?) determines our health behaviors. This theory can help you create effective messages about health risks that get your audience’s attention and empower them to take action.
• Social Ecological Model says that successful health promotion addresses both individuals and their environments. That’s because we don’t live our lives — or make our health decisions — in a vacuum. Applying this model can help you design multi-level strategies that go beyond individual behavior change to include social and systemic supports.
• Self-Determination Theory is a framework for understanding what motivates people to make choices and change behaviors. It says that people are more likely to take action — and stick with it — when they feel autonomous (in control of their decisions), competent (capable of doing the behavior), and connected (supported by others). This theory can help you create programs that keep people motivated by making them feel in control, capable, and supported.

But how do you know which health comm theory is right for you? When choosing a theory to guide your work, start by thinking about your specific goals: Are you trying to raise awareness, shift attitudes, or change behavior? The right theory will help you understand the “why” behind your audience’s actions — and point you toward strategies that can make a difference. Consider factors like your audience’s readiness for change, the context in which they receive information, and the barriers they might face.

There’s no one-size-fits-all approach — and often, combining multiple theories or constructs from multiple theories can give you a more complete picture. The key is to choose a theory (or theories) that aligns with your project’s purpose and your audience’s needs.

The bottom line: Theories offer a powerful foundation for your health communication work — helping you understand your audience, shape your strategy, and inspire behavior change.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Theory provides a roadmap for better understanding your audience, the factors that influence them, and their health behaviors. This week, CommunicateHealth highlights a few favorite #HealthComm theories: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/health-comm-theories-a-roundup/

Dear readers, a few weeks ago, we wrote about why science-based vaccine recommendations matter. As health communicators, it’s our job to translate complex health topics into plain language — especially when they’re dominating the headlines.

So today, we’re taking a step back to explain how vaccines are developed, tested, and approved in the U.S. And we’re sharing a few of our favorite expert-approved resources to help you talk about this process with your audiences. Let’s dig in!

1. It all starts in the lab.
Researchers identify a disease-causing organism, like a virus or bacteria, and explore how to train the immune system to recognize and fight it. It takes years of thorough research in the lab and testing in animals to create a vaccine that’s likely to be safe and effective in people.

2. Then clinical trials begin.
If early testing in the lab looks promising, researchers move on to human clinical trials — that is, testing the vaccine in people. These trials happen in phases, each with more volunteer participants than the last. The goal of clinical trials is to carefully test the vaccines for safety, dosage, and effectiveness.

• Phase 1: Safety check to look for potential side effects in a small group (between 20 and 100 people)
• Phase 2: Testing dosages, effectiveness, and side effects in a bigger and more diverse group (between 100 and 300 people)
• Phase 3: Further safety and effectiveness testing in thousands of people, often comparing the vaccine to a placebo, which is given to participants just like the vaccine but doesn’t have any active ingredient in it

If scientists see that the vaccine causes side effects or doesn’t seem effective, they can cancel the clinical trial at any time. If a vaccine makes it through all 3 phases, it’s very likely safe and will work well for everyone.

3. Next up is review and approval.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experts look at all clinical trial results to decide whether the vaccine is safe, effective, and ready for use. No vaccine gets approved by the FDA without a thumbs-up from these highly trained and experienced scientists and regulators.

4. Independent experts make recommendations.
After FDA approval, another group — the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) — weighs in. This CDC advisory committee reviews the data and makes recommendations about who should get the vaccine and when. They’re a group of unpaid, independent experts (no industry ties allowed!). That means they can make unbiased recmomendations about how to use vaccines to keep people healthy.

5. Finally, ongoing safety monitoring starts.

Once a vaccine is out in the world, the work isn’t done. Scientists continue to monitor its safety through systems like:

• Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), where anyone can report side effects
• Vaccine Safety Datalink (VSD), which tracks data from millions of patients in real time

If experts see a pattern of unexpected side effects (called a “safety signal”), they investigate immediately — and adjust recommendations if needed.

There are many excellent, trustworthy resources you can use to explain the vaccine development process in plain language. Here are a few to check out:

• World Health Organization: How are vaccines developed and produced?
• Public Health Communications Collaborative: Vaccine Development, Safety, and Effectiveness
• Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia: Vaccine Science: Process of Vaccine Development

The bottom line: Developing new vaccines is a complicated process — but explaining it doesn’t have to be.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Explain vaccine development in #PlainLanguage to boost public confidence in the process. Check out CommunicateHealth’s tips and resources: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/breaking-down-the-vaccine-development-process/

Lately, the em dash has been getting side-eyed as a sign of AI-generated text. At We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we’re here to say: stop the em dash bash! The truth is, dear readers — the em dash has been a versatile punctuation mark (and one of our personal faves) since long before ChatGPT and friends came along. It’s flexible, it keeps things moving, and it sounds the way we talk. Used well, it’s not a giveaway that a writer’s been getting cozy with the bots — it’s a style choice.

Let’s back up for a second. The em dash, versatile as it is, isn’t the only dash. Dashes in general can be used to create a pause, break, or shift in a sentence to add emphasis, clarity, or dramatic effect. When used thoughtfully, dashes can help make writing clearer, more natural, and more conversational — especially in digital formats.

Not sure which dash to use? Here are our dashing tips:

Em dash ( — )

The em dash is the longest dash and so named because it’s the same width as an “M”. It’s used to set off a parenthetical comment or aside, or to add a dramatic (*faint*) pause.

Plain language tip: We recommend including a space on each side of the em dash to make it easier for people to read.

En dash ( – )

An en dash is a moderate-length dash. It’s the same width as an “N.” (Are you seeing a pattern here?) Commonly, it’s used in place of “to” for ranges (including dates and times), locations, and scores — like “the office pool party is  4:00–8:00 p.m.” or “the office–beach house commute” or “the handstand contest ended 13–5.” En dashes don’t need a space on either side.

Plain language tip: The en dash can be wonderfully useful when you don’t have much space for content (like on a social media graphic). But in most health comm-related use cases, we recommend using “to” instead of an en dash so it’s really clear that you’re not asking people to subtract.

Hyphen ( – )

A hyphen is the shortest, cutest (in our opinion) dash. It’s used to connect 2 words to create a compound word, like “long-term” or “high-tech.”

But this one can be tricky! Not sure if it’s signup, sign-up, or sign up? A couple of helpful hints:

• Verbs are usually 2 separate words, as in “Employees are encouraged to sign up for the ice cream cone relay race” or “Teams will face off on the lawn.”
• Nouns and modifiers are often either hyphenated or a single word, as in “Has anyone seen the signup sheet for the mocktail mixing competition?” or “The egg-and-spoon race did not result in serious injuries.” Check your chosen dictionary or style guide for specific guidance.

Bottom line: Dashes are tools for clarity and rhythm — and em dashes aren’t an unmistakable sign of AI writing. Used with skill, dashes can help us break up or connect ideas in flexible, easy-to-read, and engaging ways.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Is the em dash really a red flag for AI writing? CommunicateHealth makes the case for this misunderstood punctuation mark — and offers tips for using all kinds of dashes: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/stop-the-em-dash-bash/ #HealthComm