Principles of good health information
The standard UTA Intelligence publishes by — and the checklist we use to judge health information elsewhere. Outward-facing, and used to brief our own work internally.
Why a standard
Most people cannot check a clinical claim against the primary literature. What they can check is whether the information in front of them behaves like trustworthy information: does it name its sources, date itself, admit uncertainty, and respect the reader? These principles make that judgement explicit. They draw on four established frameworks — the NHS content guide, the PIF TICK quality mark, the DISCERN instrument and WHO infodemic guidance — listed at the bottom of this page.
We hold our own briefings to the same standard. Every figure UTA Intelligence publishes links to a named, verifiable source, and where no reliable figure exists we say so rather than estimate one.
1. Accurate and evidence-based
- Every clinical claim traces to a named, checkable source — a peer-reviewed study, a statutory body, or a national guideline.
- Figures are quoted exactly as the source states them, with the population and date made clear. Nothing is interpolated or estimated.
- Where the evidence is mixed or absent, that gap is stated plainly rather than filled with a plausible-sounding number.
2. Transparent about who is speaking
- The author or organisation is named, along with any funding or conflicts of interest.
- Content is dated, and updated content says what changed.
- Opinion, analysis and established fact are visibly distinct from one another.
3. Readable by the people it is for
- Plain language: short sentences, everyday words, no unexplained jargon — the NHS content guide targets a reading age of 9–11.
- One idea per paragraph; the most important point comes first.
- Numbers are given with context (per how many people, over what period) rather than as bare percentages.
4. Respectful of the reader's situation
- Non-judgemental tone: it informs decisions rather than lecturing or frightening.
- It acknowledges uncertainty and the emotional weight of health decisions.
- It tells the reader what they can do next, not just what to fear.
5. Designed so the trust signals are visible
- Sources are linked at the point of the claim, not buried in a footer.
- Headings, short paragraphs and clear hierarchy let a reader scan before committing.
- Works on a phone, with sufficient contrast and no content hidden behind interaction.
What good health information looks like on a page
At a glance
- · A clear headline that states the finding, not a fear.
- · A visible date and a named author or organisation.
- · The key number early, with its source linked beside it.
- · Short paragraphs, descriptive subheadings, no walls of text.
On closer reading
- · Claims separated from commentary and opinion.
- · Uncertainty stated where the evidence is thin.
- · A next step for the reader — what to do, ask or check.
- · Corrections and updates marked, not silently edited.
The frameworks behind these principles
- NHS Content Style Guide
Plain-language and readability standard for public health content.
- PIF TICK (Patient Information Forum)
The UK quality mark for trusted health information — 10 criteria including evidence, user involvement and currency.
- DISCERN instrument
A validated questionnaire for judging the quality of written health information about treatment choices.
- WHO infodemic management guidance
World Health Organization guidance on communicating during an infodemic, including prebunking and community trust.
These are the external standards this page summarises. UTA Intelligence is not certified by any of them; we use them as the basis for our own checklist.
See how we apply these principles in our original analysis.