Category: We Heart Health Literacy

A few weeks ago, CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky sent her staff a video outlining some changes she plans to make to our country’s leading public health agency. The video came after 2 separate reviews that Walensky ordered back in April, one investigating CDC’s COVID response and another its internal operations and policies more broadly. “To be frank,” she said in the video, “we are responsible for some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes, from testing to data to communications. This is our watershed moment. We must pivot.”

If you’ve been following us for a while, you already know that one of the main strategies we recommend for building trust with our audiences is transparency. And to her credit, Walensky was pretty darn transparent. This is critical because public health depends on public trust. And right now, that trust is fractured — and not just because of the at-times disastrous COVID response. As you know, dear readers, monkeypox has been serving up yet more challenges, including some communication conundrums. So if there were ever a time for CDC to “pivot”…

What does she mean by “pivot” exactly? Writing for Politico, Krista Mahr summed up the recommendations from CDC’s pandemic response review as “a series of improvements, including releasing scientific findings and data more quickly to improve transparency, translating science into practical and easy-to-understand policy, improving communication with the public, working better with other agencies and public health partners, and training and incentivizing the agency’s workforce to respond better to public health emergencies.”

It’ll come as no surprise that we zeroed in on the communication pieces. And really, you could argue that much of what Walenksy’s talking about is communication related — take reexamining the involved data clearance process that may have prevented the timely exchange of critical information during key points of the pandemic. Or internal promotion incentives at CDC, which have focused on publishing scientific research in scientific journals (which are almost exclusively consumed by other scientific people) — not so much on using research to communicate effectively with consumers or craft actionable policy.

And of course we need to mention communication with the American public. Walensky made it very clear that one of her main goals is to build CDC’s capacity to share actionable, plain language information with (non-scientific) people who need it. Hooray!

It’s also worth noting that she provided some context for CDC’s consumer communication shortcomings more broadly — the fact that, historically, CDC didn’t do much public-facing communication. In an appearance on The Journal podcast, Walensky explained that CDC has mostly been in the business of communicating with other scientists and public health professionals (again, think researchers publishing data in scientific publications).

“I think this is an agency that is used to communicating with the scientific community, used to communicating with the public health community and not necessarily used to having to tackle mis- and disinformation in social media,” she said. However you may feel about that, the important thing is that Walensky has explicitly named this as something that needs to change: “What became very clear during the pandemic,” she said, “is that our audience is now the American people.”

Talking to PBS NewsHour, Walensky stated her communication vision in no uncertain terms: “We need to distill the science that we’re learning to the American people, so it’s actionable, and it’s implementable, it’s understandable and accessible.” Well, we couldn’t agree more — and we’re hopeful that CDC will take these important steps to help restore faith in our public health systems.

We’ll be cheering the agency on from We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters.

The bottom line: We’ve got some work to do to rebuild public trust in public health. Dr. Walensky’s plans for changes at CDC are a step in the right direction.

---

Tweet about it: #PublicHealth depends on public trust. Dr. Walensky’s plans for changes at #CDC are a step in the right direction, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3QumBC0 #HealthComm #HealthCommunication

It’s that time — kids are headed back to school, and parents are breathing an end-of-summer sigh of relief. And for many parents, that sigh is especially deep this year. In a recent study, 7 in 10 working parents reported being burned out. And we’re not talking about feeling tired at the end of a long day. We’re talking about a constant state of complete exhaustion, of feeling like you have nothing left to give — and yet, you have no choice but to struggle on.

Unsurprisingly, one of the main reasons participants named for their burnout was the heightened stress and demands of parenting during the pandemic. Almost overnight, many parents had to become remote employees, teachers, and full-time playmates for little people — while social support systems fell away.

But that’s not the whole story. COVID uncovered, rather than created, an uncomfortable reality: Too often, raising kids in the U.S. means raising kids without a safety net. The U.S. offers very little structural support to parents — you know, affordable childcare and early education programs, paid family leave, and financial support that goes beyond saving a few bucks on your taxes. Impossible, you say? Other countries know better.

So what does this mean for health communicators? Well, it’s a great reminder to communicate with empathy. Parents are a pretty standard health comm audience, so there’s a good chance you’ll work on something with them in mind. When you do, remember that things are capital-H hard right now for many parents — and be really intentional about the framing and words you choose for your health messages. Here are some tips.

Explicitly acknowledge what parents may be dealing with. Sprinkling some real talk about how difficult things are into your materials can make a big difference. It helps set an empathetic tone right off the bat, which is key to connecting with your audience. When it makes sense, add that context to steps you want people to take — try something like “We know you’ve got a lot on your plate right now…” Reflecting parents’ current reality in our health materials allows them to see themselves in our content — and that makes our communications more effective.

Be extra careful not to place blame or imply criticism. Being a parent is hard under the best circumstances, and parent guilt is real. So watch out for sneaky implications of blame or criticism directed at parents. Writing about breastfeeding? Drop the “Breastfeeding is the best thing you can do to help your baby thrive” kind of messages. Breastfeeding-related decisions are extremely personal, and sometimes — due to medical reasons, lack of support, or a million other things — they aren’t “decisions” at all. Sure, it’s helpful to explain why experts recommend breastfeeding, but it’s just as important for parents to think about what’s right for their family. Chances are, they’re already feeling bad about something — and, as it turns out, guilt and shame aren’t particularly effective motivators. (Plus no one likes a breastfeeding bully.)

Help parents set manageable, realistic goals. Often, our job is to share evidence-based public health guidance. But we can’t expect parents to follow all the guidelines all the time — and now’s a great time to make sure that message is coming through loud and clear. When you’re providing health advice, focus on small, specific action steps (hello, self-efficacy). Instead of “Try to fill most of your child’s plate with fruits and vegetables each day,” try things like “Keep easy-to-grab fruits and vegetables (like carrot sticks) on hand for snacks.”

Connect parents with all the resources. As noted above, we’ve got some work to do when it comes to systemic support for parents. But be sure to point folks to resources that do exist — like these parenting mental health resources. If you’re writing for parents in a specific geographic community, do your homework and research local resources to share — like support groups for single parents, orgs offering affordable childcare, and even local public health departments. And while we’re at it, we’ll take this opportunity to remind you to remind parents that asking for help is okay — and often, a really good idea! And encourage parents to talk with other parents — sometimes just knowing that other people are in the same boat can be a game changer.

The bottom line: It’s been a tough few years, and many parents are struggling. So ground your health materials for parents in empathy — and offer encouraging, actionable, and realistic guidance.

---

Tweet about it: #COVID19 has been particularly hard on #parents — a recent study reported that nearly 7 in 10 working parents are burned out. What does this mean for our parent-focused #HealthComm materials? @CommunicateHlth has thoughts: https://bit.ly/3QbRYkJ #HealthLiteracy

First, excuse the cheeky title. But if you stick with us, we think you’ll appreciate its intent — after all, we always try to practice what we preach. Actually, “preach” might be the wrong term here. We’re not so much preaching as opining on this one — and we’d ❤️ to hear what you think! As always, you can tweet @CommunicateHlth.

Now let’s get into it: If you’re anything like us, you’re scouring the interwebs daily for the latest updates on the tricky-to-communicate-about monkeypox outbreak. And we can’t help noticing that there are a ton of materials taking on both monkeypox and another illness that’s been top of mind for, you know, almost 3 (3?!) years: COVID-19. Yep, the internet is currently chock-full of articles with names like COVID-19 vs. Monkeypox, What’s the Difference Between Monkeypox and COVID?, and COVID-19 and Monkeypox: What You Need to Know.

And at face value, this makes sense. Monkeypox and COVID-19 are both diseases caused by viruses that are actively spreading in the United States, and public health officials are urging people to take protective steps against them. But the thing is, that’s about where the similarities end — besides those broad strokes, COVID and monkeypox have pretty much nothing in common! They come from different virus families, they spread in different ways (and with varying degrees of ease), they cause different symptoms, the testing/treatment/vaccines used to deal with them are different… shall we go on?

So with that in mind, let’s revisit those sample titles above — specifically, what those types of articles might tacitly communicate to readers. Even when you’re explicitly talking about the differences between monkeypox and COVID, we’d posit that covering both in one material could unintentionally create inaccurate associations. Frankly, just seeing these headlines over and over — even without reading the full articles — could cause folks to subconsciously link the 2 diseases.

In addition — and also related to the point above (this stuff is tricky to tease apart!) — think about some of the things we know about people with limited literacy (and health literacy) skills. For example, readers with limited literacy skills may:

• Get overwhelmed by lots of information
• Jump around a material as they read
• Struggle with working memory

Just think about these factors in the context of a health education material about 2 totally different — and complicated — diseases! There’s a lot of room for message muddling, mix-ups, and mistakes — and when we’re talking about current disease outbreaks, that matters. We don’t want someone to walk away from a material thinking monkeypox is an airborne respiratory illness, for instance. And that’s a benign example — as we’ve seen over the last few years, health (mis)information really can be a matter of life and death.

To be transparent, we haven’t had an opportunity to test this yet — for now, it’s a health comm hypothesis. And maybe you disagree! Perhaps you’ll consider this scenario and conclude that the combo approach is consistent with consumer mental models about newsworthy disease outbreaks. If there are 2 going on at the same time, you might argue, of course people will compare them — so why not meet people where they’re at? If you want to make this or another case, dear readers, we’re here for it!

But in most cases, we recommend keeping your COVID comms separate from your monkeypox comms. This actually reminds us of one of our very favorite classic novels: A Tale of Two Viral Outbreaks, er, Cities! And just as London and Paris — the 2 metropolises in question in the novel — are entirely different cities, so too are COVID and monkeypox entirely different diseases. Let’s treat them that way in our health comm materials.

The bottom line: COVID-19 and monkeypox are totally different diseases. Let’s avoid potentially harmful health comm mix-ups by keeping them separate in our materials.

---

Tweet about it: #COVID19 and #monkeypox are totally different diseases. @CommunicateHlth says keep them separate in your #HealthComm materials to avoid potentially harmful mix-ups: https://bit.ly/3CezEUI #HealthLiteracy

In the most recent edition of our Health Comm Headlines series, we rounded up some pieces on communicating about monkeypox. Which, it turns out, is pretty complicated! So this week, we’re focusing on what we previously dubbed the million-dollar question, as raised by Jason Mast in STAT: How do you get tools and information about the disease to those who need it without wrongly implying that only that group is at risk, or publicly associating an unfamiliar disease with an already stigmatized community?

This, of course, is in reference to the fact that many cases in this particular outbreak of monkeypox are in men who have sex with men. Some trans women and non-binary folks may be at increased risk as well. (Quick aside: We know that “men who have sex with men” can be problematic, and we’re thinking about how to address it in a future post.) And lots of people are drawing comparisons to the early days of the AIDS crisis, making this an especially fraught communication conundrum. We’ve been doing some pretty serious thinking on this topic — and judging by our inbox, dear readers, so have you!

So we’re bringing you ideas for sharing critical information about monkeypox with the people who need it most — without perpetuating harmful stigma and stereotypes. But before we dive in, we should note that we intend to continue this monkeypox communication convo as the current outbreak evolves — and we’re here for your insights! If you have ideas related to this communication challenge, tweet @CommunicateHlth. Now, for some preliminary thoughts:

Consider leading with the fact that anyone can get monkeypox. This is a slight departure from what we might recommend for a less complicated topic, but consider starting your messaging with a super straightforward statement that anyone can get it. This helps avoid inferences that only some people can get the virus and establishes a non-stigmatizing tone right from the get-go. Then get into the facts about who’s most at risk right now: men who have sex with men. This is a balancing act. Obviously we need to be conscious of stigma, but we also need to get men who have sex with men the info they need to understand their personal risk and how to reduce it — and fast. No doubt this is tricky and potentially a bit uncomfortable, but we don’t want to let perfect be the enemy of good when “good” means getting crucial info to a community that needs it.

Include contextualized info and stats about this outbreak. Lean on objectively stated facts, and explicitly say they’re the facts we have now (more on that below). Tell your readers that monkeypox is spreading in tight social networks of men who have sex with men, largely through sexual contact. And scientists are trying to understand why this is happening. Use numbers (if they’re available) to help keep things neutral, and avoid any temptation to editorialize the narrative of this outbreak. Fact is, we don’t yet know what that narrative is. Speaking of which…

Clearly state what we don’t know — and what might change. If we could take just one lesson from COVID communication calamities, it’s that we must be transparent about what we know and what we don’t. We’ve talked about how this can help us avoid credibility-damaging U-turns in public health guidance before, but after the last few years it’s taken on health comm scripture status. So be really explicit here: This is what we’re seeing from the data that’s available now. We still don’t know [how easily monkeypox spreads through contact with towels or surfaces, if we’ll see outbreaks at colleges as students head back to their close-contact dorms, or what have you]. Here are the protective steps we recommend based on what we know at this point. You might even consider a “what we know vs. what we don’t” kind of structure for a fact sheet. The more clear we can make it that not everything is clear yet, the better off we’ll all be.

Emphasize the good news about monkeypox. Okay, “good news” in the context of a(nother) global disease outbreak might seem optimistic, but stick with us. Compared to the early days of the COVID and AIDS outbreaks, monkeypox has a couple good things going for it, one of which is an existing vaccine. Of course, you’ll need to be careful with vaccine info due to current supply issues — do your homework and tailor materials in terms of eligibility criteria and geographic location. Aside from the vaccine, we can easily test for monkeypox and experts have identified antivirals that can help treat it. This is all very positive, and thank goodness — people are tired in general, and they’re tired of pandemics. Don’t be afraid to highlight what we’ve got on our side.

Segment segment segment! We know what you’re thinking: Audience segmentation is health comm 101. And that’s true, but we think it’s worth emphasizing. As discussed above, we don’t want to imply things that aren’t true or add to existing stigma about the group most at risk. One way to avoid that messaging murkiness is to tailor — and we mean really tailor — materials to specific audiences. Just think about how different a material that’s only for men who have sex with men would be compared to one for the general public. The former would likely focus on reducing risk through vaccination and other behavioral recs, accessing testing and treatment, and managing painful symptoms — while the latter would be about understanding the evolving situation more generally. Of course, creating multiple materials on a topic has resource implications — but if there was ever a time to push for that out of health comm integrity, surely this is it.

The bottom line: When you’re communicating about monkeypox, avoid perpetuating stigma by stating up front that anyone can get it and then explaining who’s most at risk. After that, stick with tried-and-true health comm best practices. 

---

Tweet about it: The current #monkeypox outbreak is serving up some serious #HealthComm challenges. @CommunicateHlth shares thoughts on clear messaging sans stigma: https://bit.ly/3JOScg6 #HealthLiteracy

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy HQ, we’re all about making it easier for folks to protect their health. So imagine our excitement when we heard about 988, the new 3-digit phone number for emergency mental health support that went live on July 16, 2022.

988 replaces the complex 10-digit National Suicide Prevention Lifeline number that people previously had to dial to get help for themselves or others during a mental health crisis. But it’s more than that: The new number is part of a strategy to improve mental health services across the country, which includes investing in a network of local crisis centers and national call centers staffed with mental health professionals.

And we don’t have to tell you, dear readers, that such investments are desperately needed. Currently, many people who are dealing with or witnessing a mental health emergency call 911. This often lands people who need crisis services in a hospital emergency room — or worse, behind bars. About 2 million people with serious mental health problems are booked in jail every year after confrontations with law enforcement, even though the vast majority pose no threat to public safety. This is a huge disservice to people who need help.

It’s worth noting that 988 certainly can’t fix these systemic issues overnight. Some mental health advocates have called for more transparent communication about how 988 will interact with police and emergency medical services. Still, the new number is an important step toward making mental health support more accessible in this country.   

So the next time you’re writing about mental health, be sure to include info about 988. You can tell your readers that:

• Calling or texting 988 connects you to a suicide and crisis call center, no matter where you’re calling from (there’s also a live chat at 988lifeline.org)
• Mental health professionals are available 24/7 to offer counseling and connect you to local resources if needed
• You can call for yourself, if you’re worried about a loved one, or if you witness something you think involves a person having a mental health crisis

Learn more about 988 and help us spread the word!

The bottom line: We have a (really) long way to go to improve mental health services in the United States — but the new 988 crisis number is a step in the right direction.

---

Tweet about it: The new #988Lifeline offers #MentalHealth crisis counseling and connects callers to local resources. Be sure to include it in relevant #HealthComm materials, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3BDSPa7 #HealthLiteracy

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we’ve been thinking a lot about disability and communication. And we’ve just come across a book that captures those themes perfectly. In today’s edition of We ❤️ Health Literacy Book Club, we’re exploring a must-read novel: True Biz by Sara Nović.

True Biz follows a diverse cast of characters at the River Valley School for the Deaf. We meet Charlie, a new student who’s never met another Deaf person before; Austin, a popular teenage boy from a Deaf family; and February, the school’s headmistress and a child of Deaf adults (CODA). When the local superintendent decides to close River Valley, Charlie, Austin, and February must decide how far they’re willing to go to save their school.

True Biz is a fascinating introduction to Deaf culture and activism. With short, easy-to-digest lessons between chapters, readers learn about American Sign Language (ASL) and Deaf history alongside the characters. And we discovered a few lessons that apply to our work as health communicators, too!

Give people tools to advocate for themselves. Growing up, Charlie always struggled to understand conversations with her doctor. At River Valley, Charlie learns that she can ask for a medical interpreter at the doctor’s office. This simple accommodation allows Charlie to learn more about her health, advocate for herself, and take control of her care. As health communicators, we can foster self-advocacy by letting people know what accommodations are available and how to access them. This might look like educating people about their right to a medical interpreter, informing hospital visitors about accessible seating and quiet rooms, or clearly labeling accessibility features on a website.

Consider historical context. Did you know that the inventor Alexander Graham Bell played a key role in the early days of deaf education? Did you know he promoted oralism — a philosophy that pushed Deaf children to learn spoken English instead of ASL, denying them access to a shared language and culture? We didn’t!

When you’re writing about a specific disability, it’s helpful to understand historical events that have affected the community and to consider how your messages may fit into that context. As the old saying goes, if we don’t know history, we’re doomed to repeat it — or, when it comes to health comm, we’re likely to write something that will alienate our audience.

Understand that people may disagree about treatment. In True Biz, cochlear implants create conflict between Deaf teens Charlie and Austin and their parents. In many cases, parents of children with disabilities must make big treatment decisions before their kids are old enough to give consent. Last year, parents of children with dwarfism faced a difficult decision when a breakthrough drug came to market — a treatment that could help their kids grow a few extra inches. Medical advances like these often spark big questions about disability and identity. Where’s the line between helping a child thrive and helping the child assimilate into a society designed for nondisabled people?

Even within disability communities, people may disagree on what treatment options are helpful or harmful — or what conditions should be treated at all. So when you’re writing about these emotionally charged topics, take time to learn about different points of view. Which brings us to…

Learn from the experts. Throughout the novel, hearing people impose their own ideas on Deaf people without taking time to learn from the Deaf community — or simply ask Deaf people what they need. When you’re communicating about disability, seeking out community-led organizations (like the National Association of the Deaf) and reading books by authors who share that disabled experience (like True Biz!) is a great way to learn. And be sure to get input from your priority audience, even if there’s not much room in your budget.

The bottom line: True Biz is a fascinating introduction to Deaf culture — and it’s full of lessons for health communicators!

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): CommunicateHealth is back with another edition of the We ❤️ #HealthLiteracy Book Club! Today we’re sharing #HealthComm lessons from @NovicSara’s novel True Biz: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/book-club-true-biz/

Picture this: You’re in the ER with intense pain in your leg. It’s early pandemic days, so you’re concerned that your outing to the hospital will result not only in some sort of medical attention — but also in a COVID diagnosis. Not to mention the fact that COVID means no hospital visitors, so you’re alone.

Then a doctor you’ve never met appears, announcing that your pain is due to a blood clot — and she lays out some options, one of which is emergency surgery. Considering the context, how do you think you’d rate your health literacy skills in that moment? Do you imagine you’d be on top of your game at digesting complex health information and using it to make informed decisions?

While we can’t know for sure — perhaps this hypothetical “you” has superpowers that are beyond the rest of us — we’re going to make an educated guess that no, you would not be at the top of your game. Because even though your actual day job is to create plain language health materials, the stress, pain, and anxiety of your present situation has totally changed said game.

This is representative of a concept that we’re always talking about here at We ❤️ Health Literacy HQ: Anyone can have limited health literacy skills sometimes. In other words, health literacy is a state, not a trait.

This is a phrase that’s gained traction over the years (and seems most often attributed to Dr. Dean Schillinger, though if you have any concrete info about its origin, we’d ❤️ to hear it!). But it wasn’t necessarily the standard way to look at things when health literacy was a somewhat new topic of conversation.

Instead, that conversation often went something like this: “As many as 9 in 10 Americans have limited health literacy skills. That means we’d better make our health info easier for the people with limited health literacy skills to understand.” We also drew on data telling us who was most likely to have limited health literacy skills — for example, people with lower levels of education and household incomes or non-native English speakers.

While that’s all true — and it’s also true we had to start somewhere — this framing puts the onus on individuals’ lack of ability to access, understand, and use health information. And in doing so, it glosses over the fact that health literacy is situational — it’s not a fixed character trait. When we prioritize and improve it, we make things easier for everyone — including people with super-high baseline health literacy skills who happen to be busy, stressed, sick, or scared in the moment.

And prioritizing and improving health literacy requires systemic change — not modifications to account for people’s “deficits.” As CH President Stacy Robison wrote, “If the ‘problem’ affects 90 percent of people, maybe it’s not them… Maybe it’s us!”

Being such committed health literacy advocates, dear readers, you’ve doubtless heard all this before. But it’s an incredibly important part of the health literacy conversation, and it’s critical that we keep ourselves accountable in this space. So the next time you’re giving a health literacy training, working through a health comm challenge with your colleagues, or talking about health literacy at a dinner party (wait, you don’t do that?), keep this idea top of mind. When we do that, everyone wins. 

The bottom line: Health literacy is a state, not a trait. And it’s very important that health communicators bring that perspective to the table.  

---

Tweet about it: #HealthLiteracy is a state, not a trait. And it’s very important that #HealthComm professionals bring that perspective to the table, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3PaJFpt

Though it’s almost impossible to process that there’s yet another virus spreading around the world, here we are. You’ve doubtless been keeping an eye on monkeypox (or MPX) — and well, dear readers, there’s a lot to unpack.

Any disease outbreak comes with specific communication needs, but there are some extra layers here: namely, that lots of the current cases appear to be in men who have sex with men. Trans women and nonbinary folks may also be at higher risk. But the virus hasn’t necessarily behaved this way historically, and anyone can get monkeypox by being in close contact with someone who has it. The resulting challenge — how to get the right info to the right people in the right way given what we know now about who’s most at risk — strikes right at the heart of our health comm charge.

So this week, we’re bringing you some reads (and listens) on the monkeypox outbreak and its potential implications, communication challenges arising from the virus’s unusual behavior, and even the words we use to talk about it. Read on for more — and let us know if you have follow-up comments. This is a very interesting and important space, and we’ll be watching closely.

• Monkeypox Is Not a Public Health Emergency of International Concern, But Perhaps It Should Be (Your Local Epidemiologist)
  You know we ❤️ us some YLE! In this issue, YLE (aka Dr. Jetelina) covers WHO’s decision last month not to declare monkeypox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). In doing so, she shares some of the most up-to-date science about monkeypox — touching on topics like transmission modes and vaccine supply. As always, you can count on YLE to provide the data behind the headlines, and she raises some important questions about PHEIC classification and public health preparedness. (Quick update since we wrote this post on July 6: It sounds like WHO may be rethinking this decision. Stay tuned!)

• How the Hard Lessons of the AIDS Crisis Are Shaping the Response to the Monkeypox Outbreak (STAT)
  Many people have drawn comparisons between the early HIV/AIDS crisis and the current monkeypox outbreak — this because a lot of the cases are in men and trans women who have sex with men. And there certainly are some relevant lessons learned. The author asks the million-dollar question right at the top of the piece: “How do you get tools and information about the disease to those who need it without wrongly implying that only that group is at risk, or publicly associating an unfamiliar disease with an already stigmatized community?” It’s a really, really good question.

• Warning Vulnerable Populations About Monkeypox Without Stigmatizing Them (NPR)
  Listen to this recent edition of Consider This (or read the transcript) for a deep dive into the monkeypox outbreak and why stigma in public health is so problematic. It also touches on restoring credibility and trust in public health officials after the COVID-19 pandemic. As Dr. Boghuma K. Titanji of Emory University says, “When we … make the foundation of [our] messaging … humility, in the sense that not every question around a particular disease situation is resolved and that we may not have all the answers — I think that that vulnerability … restores some of that trust because it makes the public health officials come across as being human.” YES!

• ‘Discriminatory and Stigmatizing’: Scientists Push to Rename Monkeypox Viruses (STAT)
  This piece looks at efforts to retire the current terms used to distinguish between monkeypox viruses — which are specific geographic locations in Africa. (If this reminds you of some people’s inclination to call the coronavirus “the Wuhan virus,” you’re on the right track.) It goes on to explain an additional change that some folks in the scientific community are proposing to the name itself. As health comm professionals, we all know how much power lies in the words and labels we use to talk about public health issues. We ❤️ the discussion of how disease terminology can both compromise accuracy and perpetuate harmful stigma.

---

Tweet about it: Check out @CommunicateHlth’s latest edition of #HealthComm Headlines — this one’s all about #monkeypox, or #MPX. Lots to unpack here: https://bit.ly/3NLq9OR

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy HQ, we’re proud to be an LGBTQ+-owned organization — and we always look forward to Pride Month, which kicked off last week! Pride is all about acceptance, equity, celebrating the work of LGBTQ+ people, and raising awareness of issues that affect LGBTQ+ communities.

And as you doubtless know, dear readers, we’ve been thinking a lot lately about inclusive, respectful language — and what that means for health communicators like us. So we thought this was a great time to bring you a very simple — but very important — tip about gender pronouns.

Ever heard a person ask about someone’s “preferred pronouns”? Or maybe you’ve asked that yourself — many of us have. As a health comm professional, you may have even written “preferred pronouns” in a survey or some other health-related form collecting personal information. And while this is probably almost always well-intentioned — and is certainly an improvement from assuming we know someone’s pronouns based on how they look — it still presents a problem.

It’s the “preferred” that’s the issue here. Introducing “preferred” to this equation basically implies that using the correct pronouns to talk about someone is optional — a matter of preference. Think about it: Generally speaking, even if you prefer one thing, you’re likely still okay with an alternative (“I like plain coffee, but I prefer my coffee with milk”).

Part of a person’s actual identity is simply not on the same level as your morning caffeine choice. There’s nothing “preferred” about it. Someone’s pronouns are, factually, their pronouns — and using them correctly demonstrates respect for that person.

So save your questions about “preference” for true matters of, you know, preference! Keep it simple by asking, “What are your pronouns?” 

We know we don’t have to tell you, dear readers, but words are tremendously powerful. And in our line of work, we have a real responsibility to communicate health information with empathy. Dropping the loaded qualifier from “preferred pronouns” is one small step we can take to do better.

The bottom line: A person’s identity is not a preference. When you’re asking or writing about pronouns, drop the “preferred.”

---

Tweet about it: A person’s identity is not a preference. It’s time to drop “preferred pronouns” once and for all, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3QeMneu #HealthComm #HealthLit

You know we ❤️ sharing helpful resources for health communicators. Today we’re shining the spotlight on Your Local Epidemiologist (YLE), a Substack newsletter from epidemiologist Dr. Katelyn Jetelina.

In each issue of YLE, Dr. Jetelina breaks down the latest COVID-19 news and other timely public health topics, explaining the data behind the headlines. And this can be extremely helpful for people like us, dear readers. Turns out that it’s much easier to write plain language content about data-informed things when we understand said data ourselves.

In the early days of the pandemic, Dr. Jetelina started writing COVID-19 news updates for her students and colleagues at the University of Texas. Almost 3 years later, YLE has expanded to cover more public health topics and become a worldwide resource, reaching 125 million people in 150 countries!

In this politically polarized time, we ❤️ how Dr. Jetelina focuses on the science, demystifying daunting data points. YLE is especially helpful for communicators who don’t have much experience analyzing data or don’t come from traditional public health backgrounds.

You can sign up for emails or browse past issues of YLE on Substack. Here are a couple of our recent favorites if you want to a good place to start:

• Are we in a public health emergency? This issue tackles the question that’s on our minds constantly: More than 2 years into the pandemic, is COVID (still) an emergency?
• Banning abortions will not stop abortions. In this one, data tell the story of what happens when access to abortion is limited.

The bottom line: Check out Your Local Epidemiologist to understand the science behind the latest COVID-19 news and other timely public health topics.

Tweet about it: In Your Local Epidemiologist, @dr_kkjetelina breaks down the science behind timely #PublicHealth topics. It’s a great resource for #HealthComm folks, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3tcQjCO