Category: We Heart Health Literacy

In the world of public health, it’s no secret that social determinants of health have a huge impact on people’s health and well-being. And in the world of health communication (that’s our world!), we sometimes find ourselves explaining social determinants of health to our audiences.

Along the same lines, we’ve been paying close attention to an ongoing conversation about whether “social determinants of health” is even the right term to use. Specifically, the term “social drivers of health” has recently been gaining traction as a potentially more accurate alternative.

If you’re thinking that the change from “determinants” to “drivers” is a subtle one… well, you’d be right. But as health communicators, we know that even subtle changes can affect how people interpret what they read and hear — and what actions they take as a result. With this in mind, folks who are in favor of using “drivers” instead of “determinants” say those 2 very similar words communicate very different things. Here’s the gist of their argument:

“Social determinants of health” can indicate that people’s health has already been determined. Indeed, some research has shown that people didn’t like the word “determinants” because it implied they had no control over their own health and well-being. (Interestingly, people also tended to react negatively to the word “social,” but that’s a convo for another day.) What’s more, the implication that health outcomes are predetermined can inadvertently take the onus off of policymakers and people in power to make meaningful improvements to the policies and systems that create health inequities.

“Social drivers of health,” on the other hand, better expresses the idea that change is possible. In other words, social drivers of health most definitely influence health outcomes — but policymakers, communities, and individuals all have the ability to make positive changes to improve health and well-being.

It’s a reasonable argument, and some organizations (the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, for example) have made the switch. Others (like the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention) seem to be sticking with “social determinants of health” for now. We’re also seeing lots of orgs using the 2 terms interchangeably.

As for us, we’re all for language evolving to be more clear, action-oriented, and (most importantly) aligned with people’s needs. We’ll be watching this conversation closely for sure!

The bottom line: Some public health professionals and organizations say “social determinants of health” can wrongly imply that people’s health has already been determined — and that “social drivers of health” is a better option. What do you think, dear readers? Send us your thoughts on “social determinants” vs. “social drivers” and let’s chat about it!

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Curious why some public health folks are using “social drivers of health” instead of “social determinants of health”? CommunicateHealth explains the reasoning behind the switch — and wants to hear from you: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/lets-talk-terminology-social-determinants-of-health-vs-social-drivers-of-health/ #SDOH #HealthComm

On the eve of Halloween, we’re celebrating We ❤️ Health Literacy-style with a grab bag of sweet treats! We’ve hand-picked these resources to help with some of the scariest challenges health communicators are facing right now. So put on your most frightening costume and dig in — no trick-or-treating required.

AI in Public Health (Kansas Public Health Collaborative)

Yesterday we talked to a mysterious disembodied intelligence and got some cryptic responses. No, we haven’t started a ghost-hunting side hustle — we’re just trying out some new AI tools. If the thought of incorporating AI into your work feels a little (or more than a little) terrifying, check out these helpful resources from Kansas Public Health Collaborative. This handout on using AI to refine health content is a great place to start.  

Reframing Childhood Vaccination (FrameWorks Institute)  

Over the past few years, the ghosts of pseudoscience past and debunked disinformation have come back to haunt us. Now childhood vaccination is caught up in old controversies made new again. Luckily, the FrameWorks Institute has guidance to help us reframe this emotionally charged topic, so we can meet people where they are with empathy and evidence-based vaccine info.

Plain Language Medical Dictionary (University of Michigan Library)  

Jargon terms are the vampires of health comm: they suck the clarity out of your materials, distracting readers from your brilliant takeaways. Never fear, this handy dictionary from the University of Michigan Library can help you find a plain language explanation or alternative for even the most complex medical terms. 

Communicating About Changes in Public Health (Public Health Communication Collaborative)  

All joking aside, it’s a scary time to work in public health. And it’s a scary time for everyone who relies on U.S. public health programs, services, and research, as funding cuts and policy changes are disrupting critical work. How can we talk about these changes — and how they’re impacting our communities — in a way that resonates across deep political divides? The Public Health Communication Collaborative has thoughtful tips to help you start the conversation.

The bottom line: Check out these sweet treats to help you navigate some of today’s most frightening health comm challenges.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Celebrate #Halloween with a grab bag of sweet treats for health communicators! 🎃 CommunicateHealth has hand-picked resources to help with some of today’s scariest #HealthComm challenges. Check it out: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/halloween-treats-for-health-communicators/ #HealthLiteracy #PlainLanguage

Lately, it feels like everyone’s talking about ultraprocessed foods — journalists, politicians, and your favorite podcast hosts. The term is a mouthful — literally and figuratively — and its definition isn’t always clear. For health communicators, that confusion is where our work begins.

So what does ultraprocessed really mean? And how can we talk about it clearly and compassionately? Let’s peel back the label!

The term ultraprocessed comes from the Nova food classification system, developed by researchers at the University of São Paulo in Brazil. Nova groups foods into 4 categories based on how much industrial processing they’ve undergone:

• Unprocessed or minimally processed foods — things like fruits, vegetables, eggs, or meat
• Processed culinary ingredients — like oil, butter, sugar, or salt
• Processed foods — like canned beans, cheese, or freshly baked bread
• Ultraprocessed foods — made mostly or entirely from ingredients not commonly used in home cooking, such as packaged snacks, soft drinks, instant noodles, frozen entrées, flavored cereals, and processed meats like hot dogs or chicken nuggets

In plain language: ultraprocessed foods are made mostly in factories, not kitchens — designed to be tasty, convenient, and shelf-stable.

Why this topic is tricky — and political

It’s no coincidence that ultraprocessed foods are making headlines. Recent studies have linked high intake of ultraprocessed foods to health risks like obesity, heart disease, and depression — but those findings come with caveats. Nutrition science is complex, and food companies have a lot at stake in how these studies are framed.

Globally, some governments — including Brazil and France — have used the Nova framework to shape dietary guidelines. In the United States, the Department of Health and Human Services is taking aim at ultraprocessed foods, but exactly how remains to be seen. Some industry groups argue that the term ultraprocessed is too broad, while public health advocates see it as a powerful tool for highlighting how food systems affect health. Add in the realities of food access, marketing, and health literacy, and it’s clear: talking about ultraprocessed foods means talking about systems, not just snacks.

What this means for health communicators

As the public conversation about ultraprocessed foods continues to gain momentum, people will look to communicators for clarity — and compassion. Here’s how to keep your messages grounded:

• Lead with empathy. Everyone’s food choices are shaped by their circumstances. So when you write about ultraprocessed foods, focus on empowerment over judgment. Avoid labels like “junk food” or “clean eating,” and stay mindful that convenience, cost, and culture all influence what people eat.
• Define the term, not the person. Focus on what ultraprocessed foods are — not who eats them.
• Keep context front and center. For many people, ultraprocessed foods are the most affordable or accessible option. Acknowledge those structural realities.
• Be transparent about uncertainty. Explain both what we know and what we don’t know about ultraprocessed foods. Note that experts don’t always agree on how to classify foods — and that the research is still evolving.

After all, effective health communication means helping people make sense of the available information, so they can make the decisions that are right for them — not telling people what to eat (or not).

The bottom line: Ultraprocessed foods are everywhere — and so is confusion about what that term really means. By defining it clearly, acknowledging context and uncertainty, and approaching the topic with empathy, health communicators can help audiences make sense of a complex (and loaded) conversation.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Ultraprocessed foods are in the news — but what they mean for our health isn’t always clear. 🥫 Health communicators can help by clearly explaining what ultraprocessed foods are, avoiding stigma, and staying focused on empathy. https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/a-lot-to-digest-communicating-about-ultraprocessed-foods/ #HealthLiteracy #PlainLanguage

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