Category: We Heart Health Literacy

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

Vaccines are one of the most effective public health interventions in history. Around the world, they save millions of lives every year and have helped eradicate or reduce diseases like polio, measles, and whooping cough.

But over the last few years, vaccines have taken center stage in public health conversations — with vaccine hesitancy on the rise. What used to be a mostly behind-the-scenes scientific success story has become one of the most hot-button issues in public health. Recently, the Secretary of Health and Human Services removed all 17 members of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) and appointed a number of new members. The new Committee is meeting for the first time this week (check out this recap of the first day).

ACIP has long provided independent, expert guidance on vaccine recommendations, free from political pressure. Experts are voicing concerns that the new appointees lack relevant experience and expertise — and warn that without a strong Committee of vetted professionals, vaccine policy may lose its foundation in rigorous science.

And that, dear readers, is a pretty big deal. ACIP’s recommendations state who should get a vaccine, when, and how often — but just as important, the recommendations affect which vaccines health insurance plans have to cover. If ACIP decides not to recommend a vaccine, people might have a really hard time accessing (and affording) vaccines. ACIP’s recommendations also determine what’s covered under the Vaccines for Children program, which provides free vaccines to about half of all kids in the U.S. And last but not least — removing a vaccine from the recommended schedule might lead people to question whether the vaccine is safe and actually works to protect them. 

And that’s not the only possible stumbling block. In recent weeks, vaccine policies have bypassed ACIP entirely. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released guidance removing its recommendation for COVID‑19 vaccination for healthy children and pregnant people, without ACIP review. This move has caused confusion for families and expecting parents and left some people unable to get boosters, despite advice from their doctors.

So what’s a health communicator to do? First of all, we’ll follow these developments closely (we’re sure you will too). But secondly — let’s raise our voices in defense of vaccines, highlight the scientific process, and demand accountability from our leaders. Consider using these messages in your next campaign, social media post, or community conversation:

• Getting vaccinated is one of the most important things you can do to protect yourself and your family from serious diseases like flu, measles, and whooping cough. Worldwide, vaccines prevent as many as 5 million deaths each year.
• Vaccines go through years of rigorous testing before they’re approved — including testing in thousands of people. No vaccine is added to the recommended list unless it’s proven to be safe and effective.
• When a vaccine is developed in an emergency, it still has to go through rigorous testing to ensure it’s safe and effective. Some vaccines use previous vaccine research, or overlap steps in the vaccine development process to speed up the process without compromising safety.
• Vaccine scientists don’t just work fast — they work smart, using what we’ve learned from decades of research, and continually watching vaccines to make sure they’re safe even after they’re being given out.
• It’s normal to have questions about vaccines. If you’re doing your own research online, make sure to check your sources and also get advice from people with medical expertise, like your doctor.

The bottom line: Health communicators, your voice matters. Let’s keep lifting up the science and bringing clarity to complicated conversations — 1 plain language message at a time.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Following the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) meeting today? CommunicateHealth has thoughts on why independent, science-based vaccine recommendations matter — and how #HealthComm folks can speak out in defense of vaccine access: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/health-comm-for-the-current-moment-independent-science-based-vaccine-recommendations-matter/ #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy

Happy Pride month, dear readers! Wait… is “happy” the right word? This year, Pride feels different — the events of the past few months lay a heavy blanket of grief and uncertainty over our celebrations. Instead of embracing progress and the incredible possibilities of a more inclusive, more just society, our country has taken what seems like a million steps back. Legislative efforts are threatening LGBTQ+ people’s identities, livelihoods, health, and human rights, with many of these efforts targeting transgender people. Life-saving research and programs that support LGBTQ+ health have lost funding. Meanwhile, leaders in the highest positions of power have shared harmful rhetoric and disinformation about trans people, emboldening others to do the same.

Whether they’re focused on research, health care, bathrooms, sports, or drag queen story time, all these attacks have a similar effect: They stigmatize LGBTQ+ identities and create barriers meant to erase trans people from public life. But throughout history, LGBTQ+ people have refused to be erased. They’ve fought for their right to exist, to live full lives as their full selves. Long before health equity became a popular term, LGBTQ+ people (like these public health heroes!) advocated for a world where everyone has the resources they need to be healthy. And now, even as the language of health equity is being stripped away from many public resources, the project of working toward a more equitable and accessible world continues.

So today, we’re highlighting 3 organizations that are working to defend the rights of LGBTQ+ people, support their health and well-being, and offer educational resources to help all of us become more informed and effective allies.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)

With a record number of bills targeting the rights of transgender people, the ACLU has been at the forefront of court cases and campaigns to fight discrimination and protect trans people’s rights — like the right to receive gender-affirming health care. Supporters can easily sign pledges and petitions or send form letters to elected representatives on a number of civil rights issues. And people who’ve experienced discrimination because of sexual orientation, gender identity, or HIV status can fill out an online form to request legal assistance.

Advocates for Trans Equality (A4TE)

A4TE was founded in 2024 when 2 national trans civil rights organizations, the National Center for Transgender Equality and the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund, merged to “lead the next chapter of the transgender rights movement.” Along with taking on civil rights court cases on behalf of transgender and nonbinary people, A4TE maintains a resource library with information on a variety of topics affecting LGBTQ+ people — and resources to help allies get educated, like this Trans 101 guide.  

Brave Space Alliance (BSA)

In addition to the many great organizations advocating for LGBTQ+ rights on a national level, there are a multitude of orgs working at the local level, supporting LGBTQ+ people in communities across the country. One example is the Brave Space Alliance (BSA). An LGBTQ+ focused center on Chicago’s South Side, BSA is rooted in 4 “pillars of dignity”: health, housing, food, and identity. BSA provides important health services like behavioral health counseling, HIV testing, and referrals to care. Community building through peer support groups is equally as important to BSA’s mission as the free food pantry and housing services to help LGBTQ+ people who are experiencing food insecurity or housing instability.

The bottom line: As we honor Pride month, LGBTQ+ rights are under attack. But organizations like the ACLU, Brave Space Alliance, and Advocates for Trans Equity are supporting LGBTQ+ people in the fight for human rights and health equity.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): In honor of #PrideMonth, CommunicateHealth highlights organizations that are working to help LGBTQ+ people thrive. Check it out: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/things-we-%e2%9d%a4%ef%b8%8f-organizations-that-fight-for-lgbtq-people/ #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm

Back in April, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shared plans to create a national “autism registry.” Since then, it seems the project has evolved — instead of a registry, NIH and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) will build a “data platform” to study the causes of autism. The main data source for this platform will be the private medical records of people enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid.

Despite the shift, disability and civil rights groups are still raising privacy concerns. Considering the dark history of autism research, it’s understandable that many autistic people and their families are worried about how their data might be used. Some people are canceling doctor’s appointments to avoid generating medical records related to autism — including parents and caregivers who’d previously scheduled autism evaluations for their children. That means people may miss out on diagnostic assessments, medical care, disability accommodations, and other support they need.

So this week, we’re thinking through some thorny questions around autism and government data collection. First of all — is there really a difference between a registry and a data platform? While “registry” tends to evoke a stronger gut reaction, at the most basic level, both terms describe a collection of information. What we call this data collection effort matters less than how it’s going to affect autistic people. That’s why we wanted to explore 3 questions that get at some key concerns.

Do people get a choice? Government-run registries and databases are nothing new. In fact, there’s already a National Database for Autism Research (NDAR). But NDAR is voluntary — autistic people and their families give consent to share their data to support autism research. Government agencies, private organizations, and health care facilities run dozens of voluntary registries to study diseases and recruit participants for clinical trials.

Seven U.S. states, on the other hand, have mandatory autism registries. These collect data in different ways, usually by requiring doctors to report each diagnosis. (An eighth state, New Hampshire, repealed its registry in 2024 due to privacy concerns.)

It’s not yet clear whether the new platform, called the Autism Data Science Initiative, will ask for consent or allow people to opt out of sharing their data. But since it will use existing government data sources, it’s unlikely that people will get a choice.

How will the platform protect personal information? The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) says doctors and health insurance plans need your consent to share your health info. But HIPAA only protects “individually identifiable information.” If they remove all your personal details first (called de-identifying the data), they can share it without your consent.

NIH says the new platform will have “rigorous privacy protections,” which would mean de-identifying the data before sharing it with researchers. Here’s the bad news: by combining data from multiple data sets, it’s sometimes possible to re-identify private medical records. This lack of a true privacy guarantee makes the third and final question even more important.

How will the government use the information? The government has framed this data platform as a tool to help researchers identify causes of autism. But autism organizations have noted that the agency didn’t involve autistic people in the planning process. Listening to the diverse perspectives of autistic people and their families is key to building trust in research — and that dialogue hasn’t happened yet. In the meantime, many are concerned that the data could be misused to support the debunked claim that vaccines cause autism, perpetuate the harmful narrative of an “autism epidemic,” or focus on finding a cure for autism instead of helping autistic people live healthier lives.

The conversation isn’t over. Doctors, autism organizations, autistic people, and their families will need to keep asking these questions as plans for this platform take shape. As health communicators, we can do our part by encouraging our audiences to insist on clear answers.

The bottom line: Plans for an autism registry or data platform raise some serious privacy concerns — and we’ll all need to keep asking questions, together.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Wondering about the plans for a national autism registry or data platform? CommunicateHealth thinks through a few thorny questions: https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/health-comm-for-the-current-moment-big-questions-about-an-autism-registry/ #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm

If you’ve been around in the health comm world for a while (or if you’ve opened a newspaper at some point during the past decade), you’ve probably noticed that there’s no shortage of health topics that inspire debate. These days, the spectrum ranges from topics as seemingly innocuous as fluoride in our drinking water to hot-button items like measles vaccination. As health communicators, we often find ourselves caught in the shuffle: Our job is to provide our audiences — all audiences — with accurate, science-based, and actionable information so people can make the best decisions for their health. But what if some of our audiences aren’t receptive to our usual messages and framing?

For today’s post, we’ve gathered 3 strategies on how to bridge the divide when communicating about divisive topics — we hope you find them helpful!

Focus on shared values. 

When faced with fundamentally different views of an issue we care about, it can be tempting to not just discount other opinions, but to discount the people who hold them as “bad,” “misguided,” or to shame them for their views and actions. But the truth is, shaming people never works. Instead, focus messaging on shared values.

For example, FrameWorks Institute’s research on talking about health disparities shows that across the political spectrum, most people share the idea of dignity as an inherent human right. So, say you’re communicating with a conservative audience about the importance of protecting LGBTQ+ people’s access to health care, you might frame your argument by saying “Treating people with dignity means making sure everyone has access to life-saving care.”

Check out more of FrameWorks’ research on how to talk about health topics!

Replace “trigger words.”

One of our favorite health comm tips is tailoring the language you use to your audience — and that’s never been more important than now. Many of the terms swirling around in public health conversations have become politicized, which means that they might elicit a strong reaction from your readers — and you might risk losing your audience’s attention before you even had a chance to make your point.

To mitigate this issue, try replacing “trigger words” and phrases with alternatives that describe the same concept, but aren’t as loaded with meaning. Here’s a few examples:

• Promote health equity > Give everyone a fair chance to be healthy
• Fight for environmental/climate justice > Protect our natural resources
• Misinformation > Rumor, falsehood, or incorrect information
• Social determinants of health > Factors outside of a person’s control that affect their health

Bonus point — these replacements are often more plain language!

Frame messages around individual benefit.

Traditionally, public health messages have focused a lot on the common good of measures like vaccination. While that argument may work for some, it doesn’t resonate as strongly for others. It can also be pretty abstract. When talking about potentially controversial topics, one strategy to try is highlighting how people can benefit personally — and making it as concrete as possible. For example:

• “Getting your kids vaccinated can mean less sick time away from school — and it can help schools stay open by preventing community outbreaks.”
• “Resting at home when you’re sick can help you feel better faster and get back to work, school, and other activities that are important to you.”
• “If someone close to you is using opioids, consider carrying naloxone — it might help you save a loved one’s life.”

The bottom line: As health communicators, our job is to create messages that can reach audiences across the social and political spectrum. And while we can’t control how our messages are received, we can shape how they’re delivered — and raise the chances people are ready to hear what we have to say.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Many health topics have become politicized — making it tricky to reach audiences across the spectrum of opinions. CommunicateHealth shares 3 strategies to help bridge the divide. https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/health-comm-for-the-current-moment-bridging-the-divide/ #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we’re always looking for ways to make content more accessible. One key way to do that: writing good, descriptive alt text. (We first wrote about this way back when in 2016).

In case you need a reminder, alt text — or alternative text, for long — describes images on a webpage or in a document, social media post, or email. Alt text ensures that the meaning and context of images are accessible to people with visual impairments who use assistive technology (like screen readers). But including alt text makes images accessible in other situations, too — like when a web browser fails to load images. What’s more, alt text is required by law for materials created by federal entities.

And while writing alt text might seem straightforward, we’ve found that that’s not always the case! That’s because:

• Context matters. The right alt text for an image depends on what you’re trying to say and who you’re trying to reach with your content. For example, in a material about getting enough physical activity, you could describe an image as “Two people playing basketball in a park.” But if the material is about something else — like the importance of social connection for teens — you might describe the same image as “Two teens playing basketball together at the park” to better support your content.
• Not every image needs alt text! By providing alt text, we aim to create an equivalent experience for people who can’t otherwise access the images. But for people who use screen readers, having to sift through alt text for every image on a page — particularly when the alt text is redundant with the page copy — can be burdensome. We like this resource from Nielsen Norman Group for determining which images need alt text.
• It can be hard to determine the right level of detail — particularly for complex images. When you’re writing alt text for a complex image, it can be tricky to provide enough detail to be useful without overwhelming the person reading the alt text. If you have a complex image with a lot of content — like an infographic or a chart — consider creating an accessible text version of your image content
• Describing identity takes care and sensitivity. There might be times where it’s relevant to describe aspects of identity — like race, gender, disability, or age — in your alt text. But knowing when it’s important to describe identity — and which terms to use — isn’t always straightforward.

So — how do we write good alt text? Here’s a few best practices we like to keep in mind:

• Keep it short. Shorter alt text can make for a better reading flow. Focus on what readers need to know about an image — and skip anything that’s “nice to know.”
• Don’t include redundant information. Review your drafted alt text alongside the main text to make sure you haven’t repeated anything.
• Include end punctuation. Be sure to end your alt text with a period, question mark, or exclamation point. Most screen readers will pause for a moment after punctuation, which makes for a more pleasant reading experience.
• If you’re using AI to generate alt text, be sure to review it. While AI can generate alt text quickly, keep in mind that it doesn’t replace a human’s judgment and reasoning. If you’re going to use AI to write alt text, allow time to review and adjust.
• Use identifiers with care. In general, describing identity in alt text matters most when you’re writing for a specific audience who you’re representing in your images. For example, if your material is for older Black adults, it probably makes sense to describe age and race in your alt text. If including identifiers in alt text is important for your content, take time to do your research on your audience’s preferred terms and choose inclusive language that will resonate with readers.

The bottom line: Including alt text is a key way we can make our health communication materials more accessible. By following best practices, we can make sure our alt text is useful, clear, and inclusive.

---

Copy/paste to share on social (and tag us!): Writing good alt text is a key way to make health materials more accessible for everyone. CommunicateHealth shares some thoughts on how to write alt text that’s clear, useful, and inclusive. https://communicatehealth.com/wehearthealthliteracy/alt-text-revisited #HealthCommunication #HealthLiteracy #HealthComm