Health Information Literacy

A trusted adult for health questions is a specific named person — a parent, a named teacher, the school nurse, or a doctor — whose role includes helping children with questions about their body and wellbeing.+1 more

Some people know more about health than others, and asking a specific person whose job is to know is a skill I can use on purpose, not just something I do when I'm worried.

I can complete a short rubric-assessed oral or written task in which I am presented with a simple health claim, and I identify whether it came from a trusted source, who I would ask, and why.

A reliable health source names its author, and the author has relevant qualifications — doctor, registered nurse, registered dietitian, recognised health organisation.+2 more

Where a piece of health information came from matters at least as much as what it says — a claim without a traceable origin is a claim I cannot check.

I can complete a rubric-assessed written task comparing two health information sources on the same topic, stating which I trust more and naming two specific reasons from the three reliability criteria (author, evidence origin, funding/transparency).

Types of evidence used in health claims: anecdote (one person's story — weakest for generalising); correlation (two things appearing together — does not establish cause); controlled study (compares a group receiving a treatment with a matched group that does not — strongest of these three).+1 more

Different kinds of evidence carry different weight, and the person making a health claim almost always has something at stake — recognising both is the foundation of thinking about claims rather than just reacting to them.

I can complete a rubric-assessed written analysis of a single health claim that names the type of evidence it rests on (anecdote / correlation / controlled study), names any bias indicators present in the source, and states and justifies my conclusion about how much weight to give the claim.

Evidence hierarchy in health research: systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (strongest) > single RCT > cohort study > case-control study > cross-sectional study > expert opinion > anecdote (weakest).+3 more

Health claims frequently contradict each other, and judging them well is a matter of weighing the quality of the evidence rather than the certainty of the tone or the closeness of the messenger.

I can complete a rubric-assessed written evaluation of a contested health claim (two or more sources disagreeing) that applies the evidence hierarchy, identifies the specific strongest and weakest arguments on each side, and justifies my conclusion with reference to the criteria of critical appraisal.

Peer review is the process by which other experts in a field assess a study before publication; its limitations include reviewer bias, slow pace, and routine failure to detect subtle methodological flaws.+3 more

Health information is produced inside systems — funding, commercial interests, publication incentives, peer-review imperfections — and strong health literacy means being able to think about how that system shapes what reaches me, not only whether the last source I read was trustworthy.

I can complete a rubric-assessed written analysis of an evidence base supporting a specific health claim that judges whether the body of evidence warrants the confidence placed in the claim, identifies the commercial or institutional interests that may have shaped what research was done and published, and justifies my conclusion using peer-review, RCT-design, statistical, and funding-bias criteria.

Reading a systematic review or meta-analysis: key sections include the PICO question (Population / Intervention / Comparison / Outcome), search strategy, inclusion/exclusion criteria, risk-of-bias assessment, forest plot showing pooled effect sizes, heterogeneity measures (I²), and the GRADE evidence-quality summary.+3 more

The distance between an individual research finding and a public-health guideline I am advised or required to follow is long and politically mediated — critical health literacy at the highest level is being able to trace that journey and judge its integrity.

I can complete a rubric-assessed analysis that reads and interprets a provided systematic review or meta-analysis at an introductory level (identifying PICO, risk-of-bias findings, pooled effect, and GRADE rating), traces how a named policy recommendation or guideline was derived from an evidence base, and evaluates whether that guideline is well-supported, weakly-supported, or contested, articulating what I am certain of, what remains uncertain, and why.