Category: We Heart Health Literacy

With COVID-19 cases once again on the rise, dear readers, putting a stop to the spread of vaccine misinformation is crucial. But mythbusting in the midst of an ever-shifting pandemic can be a difficult task. So this week, we’re sharing our appreciation for some folks who are leading a coordinated charge against COVID-related false information: Stronger.

Stronger is a national advocacy campaign created by The Public Good Projects that aims to stop the spread of vaccine misinformation. They work with partners to share correct info — and also provide useful tools to help people find trustworthy answers to their vaccine questions, spot misinformation in the wild, and report accounts that spread dangerous myths. We especially ❤️ how they make it easy to stay on top of the misinformation landscape by sending super timely email alerts about misinfo surges (sign up for those here).

Another one of our favorite offerings from Stronger is this handy roundup of resources, including how to spot misinfo and how to report it on social media. And if you’re as jazzed about Stronger’s efforts as we are, check out more ways to get involved. 

The bottom line: Stronger works to stop the spread of vaccine misinformation — and that’s something we definitely ❤️!

Tweet about it: It’s not easy countering #COVID19 vaccine misinfo. Fortunately for us #HealthComm folks, @stronger_org is up for the challenge, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3jOvgB4 #HealthLit

As you know, dear readers, we’re always on the lookout for jargon words to ban from our vocabularies. On the chopping block this week: “detect” and “detection.”

In health comm, we often talk about the benefits of early detection to improve outcomes. But “detect” often brings to mind devices like smoke detectors, lie detectors, metal detectors… not exactly setting the scene for a cozy prevention visit with your human doctor!

So next time you detect this bit of jargon in your materials, see if you can swap it out for a friendlier plain language alternative — like “find,” “notice,” or “check for.”

Try this:

• Regular mammograms can help find breast cancer early, when it’s easier to treat
• If you notice any of these symptoms, go to the doctor right away
• Your doctor can do an eye exam to check for signs of glaucoma

Not this:

• Regular mammograms allow for early detection of breast cancer
• If you detect any of these symptoms, convey yourself at once to the nearest physician
• Your doctor can do an eye exam to detect glaucoma

The bottom line: Forget “detect” — “find,” “notice,” or “check for” symptoms and diseases instead!

Tweet about it: It’s time to ditch “detect” in your #HealthLit materials! @CommunicateHlth explains why and offers #PlainLanguage alternatives: https://bit.ly/37kK191

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy HQ, we’re always on the lookout for cool new tools to help us make the web a more accessible place. Today, we’re geeking out about tools that can help you make your site more accessible for users who are blind or have vision problems.

Use browser extensions for quick accessibility tips

Browser extensions are tools that you can add on to your internet browser. There are 2 free browser extensions that you can use to identify accessibility issues: Accessibility Insights for Web and WAVE Web Accessibility Evaluation Tool.

These extensions flag common issues like confusing links and missing alt text and offer practical tips to help you avoid those pitfalls. They can also help you understand how users might navigate your site using a screen reader.

See what your users see

Seeing the web through your users’ eyes can help you better understand their needs. Google Chrome and Firefox offer built-in tools that can show you what it’s like to browse the web with different kinds of color blindness. Chrome also has a filter to simulate blurry vision.

Here’s how to access these tools.

In Google Chrome:

1. Click the 3 dots in the top right corner of the Google Chrome window — then click More Tools > Developer Tools
2. Hold down Command + Shift + P to open the Command Menu
3. Click Show Rendering to open the Rendering Pane
4. Choose an option from the Emulate Vision Deficiencies section

In Firefox:

1. Click Tools > Web Developer Tools > Accessibility
2. Choose an option from the Simulate drop-down menu

The bottom line: Find tools to help make your website more accessible for people with vision problems.

Tweet about it: Want to make your site more accessible for people with vision problems? Try these helpful tools, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3lagneD #a11y #HealthLit

During COVID-19, we here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters have found ourselves drawn to stories about past pandemics. So this week, we’re introducing you to a must-read novel set during a very different (and perhaps even more gruesome) pandemic. Doesn’t it sound like the perfect beach read?!

In Year of Wonders, Geraldine Brooks tells a fictionalized tale of the real-life English village of Eyam during the 1600s. When the bubonic plague arrived at their doorstep, Eyam’s villagers made the difficult decision to quarantine their entire community to avoid spreading the “plague seeds” elsewhere. Over the 14 months of the self-imposed quarantine, 260 villagers got sick and died.

Our health communication brains saw a lot of COVID-19 parallels in the pages of this book. For example, Brooks’s narrative explains that the villagers of Eyam didn’t make the selfless decision to quarantine on their own. It was the town minister who came up with the idea and convinced everyone to get on board. In other words, the community needed a trusted messenger who could explain in plain language what steps they needed to take and why!

And much like health communicators today, the minister and others in favor of the quarantine had to combat dangerous health misinformation. When a myth about local healers being witches who caused the plague went, ahem, viral, some villagers turned on the very people in a position to help them. Sound familiar, dear readers?

In spite of the community’s inner turmoil, the villagers stuck with the quarantine — and that decision likely slowed the spread of the plague to nearby towns and villages. Brooks also dramatizes how, despite all their personal losses, many villagers went above and beyond to help each other through an incredibly dark time. And that’s what we call a public health success story.

The bottom line: Read Geraldine Brooks’s novel Year of Wonders for a historical take on the trials and triumphs of quarantining during a pandemic.

Tweet about it: Looking for your next plague-related beach read ??? @CommunicateHlth recommends Year of Wonders by @GeraldineBrooks: https://bit.ly/3rdXybB

As health communicators, we deal with survey data on the regular. Surveys can be a powerful tool to help us better understand our priority audiences and their information needs. But without thoughtful interpretation, survey data can be confusing at best — and misleading at worst.

So this week, we’re bringing you some food for thought about a key ingredient in every survey: the respondents. Answering the questions below will help you interpret, apply, and explain survey results with more nuance — and with a better sense of the people behind the data.

• Who took the survey? The first step in understanding survey results is getting a grip on exactly who answered the questions. For example, if 97 percent of your respondents regularly talk to cats, it’s pretty important to know that you only surveyed cat owners. Ideally, your survey’s eligibility requirements will overlap with key characteristics of your priority audience. But if they don’t perfectly align — say, your audience is cat owners but you were only able to survey people with spooky hairless sphynx cats — make sure you take those differences into account as you interpret the results.

• Who didn’t take the survey? If you sent the survey to 1,000 cat owners and only 100 responded, it’s important to think about what that response rate might mean. Start by taking a look at the demographics — were people of a certain race, age, or income level more likely to respond? Then you can think about what these differences mean for your results.

• How many people took the survey? In survey research, size really matters! After all, 90 percent of 1,000 people is very different from 90 percent of 10 people. And a result that seems noteworthy in a sample of 10 people — like 3 people who say that when they talk to their cats, their cats talk back — may not be so impressive if it’s 3 in a sample of 1,000. Larger sample sizes typically mean better-quality survey data — so keep sample size in mind to keep your results in perspective.

• How many respondents answered each question? Some survey questions may only apply to certain respondents. Let’s say you ask, “How often does your beloved cat bring you offerings of dead birds?” People with indoor cats are likely to skip that question (barring any unfortunate overlap with pet parakeets). So it’s important to always take careful note of the base — the number and description of respondents who answered each specific question. In this case, that would be the number of outdoor cat owners in your total sample size.

• Was the sample random or non-random? In a perfect world, we’d always use a random sample. Random samples are the next best thing to interviewing every single person in a population. But random sampling can be expensive and time consuming, especially if you’re researching a very specific population — people who have 12 or more cats, perhaps. So if your survey uses a research panel or another non-random sampling method, just remember that the results may not be generalizable to your whole priority audience.

• What’s the quality of the results? It’s important to take all survey results with a grain of salt. After all, we’re relying on people to self-report answers — and who wants to admit exactly how many times they have tried to dress up their cat as Mufasa from The Lion King? But the size of the grain will vary! A random sample of 10,000 people may yield high-quality results — so maybe just a dash of fine table salt. A non-random sample of 100 is a bit more iffy — think a generous dusting of coarse kosher flakes. Consider the quality of the results before you apply survey findings to your materials — and if you’re communicating survey results to others, make sure your framing mentions how much salt you recommend.

The bottom line: Take a closer look at respondents to better understand and explain survey results. 

Tweet about it: Surveys are a great tool for understanding our priority audiences. But first, we need to understand who’s taking the survey! That’s why it’s a good idea to take a closer look at respondents, says @CommunicateHlth: https://bit.ly/3wsqf5l

In public health, dear readers, talking about “vulnerable” communities, populations, or individuals is standard fare. We’ve all said it many times when referring to communities we’re prioritizing with our communications or programs. But this week, we wanted to make a case for retiring it from our vernacular. Why? Well, the term can put the blame on the very people we’re trying to help. And beyond that, it’s a card-carrying member of the “just plain vague” club — in a pretty problematic way.

We recently went to a conference where Dr. Tabia Henry Akintobi, a professor at the Morehouse School of Medicine, astutely pointed out that calling people “vulnerable” implies that the problem lies with them. This term carries a negative connotation of weakness and seems to suggest that certain people have some intrinsic characteristic that makes them more likely to get diseases or have worse outcomes from those diseases. It puts the onus on the people who are affected, rather than on the public policies and societal institutions that are truly to blame.

In addition, terms like “vulnerable groups” can obscure the actual people you’re talking about. It’s important to acknowledge not only the source or cause of a population’s oppression — but also the identities of the people who are oppressed! Calling a group “vulnerable” and leaving it at that erases specific populations with a vague, useless catchall.

We should note that calling out problems with “vulnerable” isn’t new, but it seems especially important to talk about now. As more and more people are confronting how deeply racism is woven into the fabric of our country and our society, we need to think about how our words could reinforce harmful patterns. When we list race as a risk factor, we conceal racism as the true cause of most racial health disparities — and when we call people “vulnerable,” we risk perpetuating the discrimination and unfair treatment that damaged their health in the first place.

So what’s an alternative?

When you’re talking to your health-communicating colleagues, consider “disproportionately affected by” (or “impacted” or what have you). It’s not the most elegant phrasing, but it’s accurate and everyone will know what you’re talking about (think: “populations disproportionately affected by COVID-19”). And if you need something more appropriate for consumers, consider the plain language “hit hard by” (as in: “communities hit hard by the pandemic”).

And instead of using “vulnerable” as a catchall, name the groups you mean. Sticking with a COVID-19 example, let’s say you’re talking about racial and ethnic groups that are at increased risk of getting COVID and having worse outcomes. Instead of “vulnerable populations,” list out the races and ethnicities you’re talking about: people who are Black, Hispanic or Latino, and American Indian or Alaska Native.

And if you can, describe the root causes that increase health risks in certain groups. For example, you could say: “We’ve identified Black people as a priority audience because structural racism and centuries of disinvestment in Black communities have damaged Black people’s health and increased their risk of getting and dying from COVID-19.”

The bottom line: Calling communities “vulnerable” puts the blame on those communities — and leaves too much room for interpretation. Let’s stop using it!

Tweet about it: We use the phrase “vulnerable communities” a lot in #PublicHealth and #HealthComm — but it’s pretty problematic. @CommunicateHlth explains why: https://bit.ly/3q5BKy5

As you know, dear readers, preventing HIV is a major public health priority. And we can’t talk HIV prevention without talking PrEP and PEP. (Rhyming acronyms, anyone?)

When they’re used correctly, these 2 medicines are very effective at protecting people from HIV. That’s why, as health communicators, we need to tell our audiences about PrEP and PEP as part of HIV materials — and make sure we clarify the difference.

Here’s how to give a very basic explanation of PrEP and PEP in plain language:

• PrEP (pre-exposure prophylaxis) is medicine for people who don’t have HIV but are at risk of getting it. If you have sex with someone who has HIV or you inject drugs and share needles with other people, taking PrEP every day can keep you from getting HIV.
• PEP (post-exposure prophylaxis) is another kind of medicine that can prevent HIV, but it’s for emergency situations. For example, you can use PEP if a condom breaks and you’re not sure if your partner has HIV or you accidentally stick yourself with a used needle. It only works if you take it within 3 days of coming in contact with HIV.

As always, remind your audiences to talk to their doctor to learn more. And remember that people who need PrEP and PEP may not be able to afford them on their own — so include information about paying for PrEP and paying for PEP.

The bottom line: When you’re writing about HIV prevention, make sure you explain PrEP and PEP in plain language.

Tweet about it: When you’re writing about #HIV, it’s important to explain PrEP and PEP in #PlainLanguage. Not sure how? @CommunicateHlth can help: https://bit.ly/2TYfvhJ #HealthLit

Here at We ❤️ Health Literacy Headquarters, we come across the word “adverse” a lot. Adverse drug events, adverse reactions, adverse childhood experiences… it’s a real health jargon regular! And, like most jargon terms, “adverse” has no place in consumer health materials.

Of course, as a health communicator, you’ll often need to communicate about an adverse something-or-other. For example, if you’re describing treatment options for a disease, explaining the potential side effects is really important!

But you can write about risks, side effects, and other unpleasant outcomes without calling them adverse anything! Here are a few simple plain language swaps to use instead.

Try this:

• Most people have mild side effects from the vaccine.
• If you have a bad reaction to the medicine, call your doctor right away.
• Kids who have difficult experiences in childhood are more likely to have health problems as adults.

Not that:

• Most people have mild adverse events from the vaccine.
• If you have an adverse reaction to the medicine, call your doctor right away.
• Kids who have adverse childhood experiences are more likely to have health problems as adults.

The bottom line: Ditch “adverse” in favor of plain language terms like “side effects” and “bad reactions.”

Tweet about it: “Adverse” is a health jargon regular (think “adverse events”) — but it’s not a good fit for #PlainLanguage health materials. @CommunicateHlth suggests some simple swaps: https://bit.ly/3cfJKqE #HealthLit

As health communicators, we spend a lot of time encouraging people to avoid health risks. And often, the first step is convincing them that there is a risk in the first place!

You may be tempted to tell them all the scary things that could happen if they don’t change their ways. (Don’t be too accommodating to cats, or they may… dun dun dun… TAKE UP RESIDENCE ON YOUR HEAD!) But we know that fear appeals are tricky to use effectively.

So what’s a health communicator to do? Fear not! The Extended Parallel Process Model (EPPM) is here to save the day. The EPPM, developed by Dr. Kim Witte, explains that health risk messages tend to get people thinking about 2 things: threat and efficacy.

Perceived threat describes how people think about a particular health risk. It has 2 parts:

• Perceived severity (“How bad is cat head, really?”)
• Perceived susceptibility (“What’s the chance of me personally getting cat head?”)

Perceived efficacy describes how people think about behaviors to prevent the health risk. It also has 2 parts:

• Perceived response efficacy (“Does keeping your hair wet at all times really prevent cat head?”)
• Perceived self-efficacy (“Can I personally go through life with eternally wet hair?”)

According to the EPPM, how we perceive threat and efficacy determines our health behaviors.

How does this work in practice, you ask? Let’s say you try a fear appeal. You make a scary TV commercial that shows a person with a truly dire case of cat head. At the end, in big spooky font, the commercial says: “CAT HEAD: IS IT COMING FOR YOU?”

The first person who sees your commercial thinks, “How unfortunate for that poor fellow. But my cat just isn’t the clingy type, so clearly cat head can’t happen to me.” They don’t perceive that the threat is relevant to them (low perceived susceptibility), so they don’t take any action to avoid it.

The second person who sees your post thinks, “Oh no! I, too, have a head and a cat. So I could catch cat head any moment!” You got their attention — but now they’re too terrified to take any preventive measures (sky-high perceived severity and susceptibility). Instead of taking action, they choose to hide under the bed.

What went wrong here? According to EPPM, the key to an effective health risk message is a delicate balance between perceived threat and efficacy. Fear can be a powerful motivator, but we don’t want to motivate people to hide under the bed. We want them to feel that the threat is personally relevant to them, but also feel confident that they can take steps to prevent it.

So let’s try this message again, with a better balance of threat and efficacy: “Anyone who treats cats with too much courtesy is at risk for cat head. But the good news is that you can protect yourself by keeping your hair cold, wet, and inhospitable to cats. Ask your doctor if wet hair is right for you.”

We don’t know about you, dear readers, but we’re feeling more in control of our cat head risk already.

The bottom line: Take a cue from the Extended Parallel Process Model — balance threat and efficacy to help your audience avoid health risks.

Tweet about it: How can we motivate our audiences to prevent health risks? According to the Extended Parallel Process Model, it’s all about balancing threat & efficacy. @CommunicateHlth explains how you can strike the right balance in your #HealthLit materials: https://bit.ly/2T8hKP2

We’ve talked about a few different platforms in our social media series (including the Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram trifecta). But today, we’re tackling a very different social networking beast: TikTok.

We know what you’re thinking, dear readers — TikTok? Really? The platform Gen Z uses to show off their dance moves and make fun of millennials’ style choices? We’re here to tell you that TikTok is much more than that. It’s a place where anyone can post short videos about anything — including health content!

From workout tips to eye health mythbusting to COVID vaccine explanations, TikTok has it all when it comes to health-related topics. But why should you fling your content into the TikTok void? Consider this: as of last year, TikTok had been downloaded more than 2 billion times — and it was the most-downloaded app in 2020.

So in the spirit of reaching people where they are, use these tips to TikTok-ify your health content:

• Be authentic. One of TikTok’s greatest strengths as a platform is that it provides real content from real people. The best-performing videos showcase the person’s authentic experience and voice — whether they already have a huge following or just downloaded the app yesterday. So feel free to let your winning personality shine through when you’re creating content for TikTok!
• Use humor. One thing that successful TikTok videos generally have in common is that they’re funny. Not all health topics will lend themselves to humor, of course — but sometimes a lighthearted approach can help people talk about a tricky subject. And sometimes it just helps us handle hard stuff! Take the proliferation of bubonic plague TikToks during the pandemic, for example.
• Hashtag it. If you spend any time at all on social media, hashtags are probably familiar faces. TikTok hashtags work in much the same way that hashtags work on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter — so use them to add your voice to the conversation! Make sure to tag your videos with relevant and trending hashtags. And always use “#fyp” or “#ForYou” so it’s more likely your TikToks will land on people’s For You pages (where the TikTok algorithm shows you content it thinks you’ll like).
• Respond to others’ TikToks. You can reply to someone else’s video with a feature called “stitching.” Your TikTok will show a clip of the video you’re stitching, followed by your content. It’s a great way to have a conversation — or even combat some health misinformation!
• Caption your videos. Always add captions (on-screen text that displays dialogue) to your videos. Captions don’t only benefit people who are Deaf or hard of hearing — they also make your content accessible to people who have their sound muted! There’s even a handy new feature to add captions automatically.

The bottom line: TikTok is an opportunity to share your health content in new and fun ways. (And seriously, all the cool kids are doing it.)

Tweet about it: TikTok for #HealthComm? That’s right, says @CommunicatHlth. Get tips for using Gen Z’s fave platform to share your #HealthLit content: https://bit.ly/3eOV133