These are programs that serve households that have lost their income and seek to maintain safe and stable housing. Eligible types of activities include, but are not. Eligible types of activities include, but are not limited to, the following:. An official website of the United States government The.
Does gov mean it's official. Federal government websites often end in. government or. thousand.
Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you're on a federal government site. However, determining what constitutes high-quality health information is a complex and multidimensional process. While SMPs are beginning to test strategies for elevating and labeling high-quality information, there is no public data available to demonstrate what works, nor is there scientific or technical consensus on the most effective approach. However, the urgency of ensuring access to high-quality health information requires measures, even if those measures are initially imperfect.
The challenge will require collaboration between public and private actors to develop phased and iterative solutions, paying attention to transparency, accountability and the incorporation of feedback from a diverse set of stakeholders. This document focuses specifically on evaluating sources of health information, rather than on content or design (discussed in more detail under “Scope”). The authors offer initial principles and attributes for SMPs to consider in their efforts to identify credible sources with the ultimate goal of promoting access to high-quality health information. Therefore, the guidance in this document is limited in scope and is offered as a starting point in what should be an ongoing process.
This guide will also need to be reviewed and updated regularly in accordance with changes in the online information ecosystem. SMPs must invest in continuous and rigorous research and analysis on this topic; commit to transparency and continuous quality improvement; and build and maintain collaborations with scientific, health, ethical and other communities to ensure an effective and responsible approach. While this document aims to inform SMP policies, organizations that share health information through social networks may find that the principles and attributes of credibility are useful in evaluating their own approach. It's important to note that members of the public can also use this guide to report their personal evaluation of sources.
Both groups should count on the participation of SMPs and others seeking to improve the accessibility of high-quality health information on social networks. The project involved an independent expert advisory group comprised of multidisciplinary experts in information governance, health information development, public health and health equity, social networks and disinformation, and scientific communication (whose members are also authors of this article), a public webinar, a public comment period, and other information-gathering activities. This document does not constitute an official recommendation of the NAM or the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM), nor does it represent an approval of any action taken by YouTube or other SMP after its publication. Health on the Net (HON) Foundation Certification.
HON is an international not-for-profit organization based in Switzerland. HON certification holds medical and health websites accountable in accordance with basic ethical standards in the presentation of information, including sharing information only from trained and qualified professionals, respecting the privacy of patients and consumers, providing evidence in supporting claims, and disclosing financial interests, among others. Websites with the HON certification gain the right to display a visual seal as an indication of their integrity. MedlinePlus is an NLM website designed to share health information with the public.
MedlinePlus primarily links to other government websites, but will consider the inclusion of non-governmental websites (i.e. MedlinePlus also gives preference to websites that don't host ads. URAC certification for health content providers and health websites. The URAC is an accreditor that offers certifications for health information sources that comply with disclosure standards, editorial and content review processes, privacy and security, external link policies, consumer complaint processes, and more.
Given the complexity of the task, including the volume of health information being shared through social networks and the controversial nature of the evolution of content moderation policies, the authors limit their orientation to what they believe is a feasible first step in improving access to high-quality health information. Therefore, this article focuses on the credibility of health information sources, rather than on the information shared by these sources. Source evaluation is a common means of selecting a large volume of content because it eliminates the need to evaluate each piece of information individually (although advances in machine learning may soon increase the viability of full-scale content evaluation). In addition, the authors limit their consideration in this document to government and non-profit organizations (including nonprofit news sources that share health information), not to individuals (p.
e.g. People require a separate analysis because they lack the organizational infrastructure that underlies the authors' approach to evaluating sources in this article. For-profit organizations have a unique set of financial interests that, likewise, require a separate evaluation. However, the authors' decision to omit consideration of individual, for-profit sources in this article does not reflect a judgment on their credibility.
Individuals and not-for-profit organizations can be very credible and are influential sources of health information on social media. Therefore, future analysis should focus on an assessment of their credibility, as well as the quality of the information they share. It should also be noted that the demarcations between individuals and organizations and between non-profit and for-profit organizations are not always clear. Many of the principles set out in this document can be applied to not-for-profit organizations.
Finally, the authors have limited their current approach to organizations based in the United States, including those that provide information in languages other than English. While some of the guidelines in this document may apply to organizations outside the United States, this work in the international context will require more research and the participation of global partners. Terminological precision is fundamental to this task and was the subject of careful deliberation by the authors. The following are definitions and discussions of the key terms used in this document.
As noted in the Introduction, high-quality information is information that is “science-based” or that is consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time. The state of science and knowledge is constantly evolving, so the time marker is an important component of this definition. The evolution of knowledge is also the reason why more absolute terms, such as precise ones, are less appropriate. While this document does not directly consider the quality of information, the objective of the approach under discussion is to increase access to high-quality information.
The authors define health information as content related to health conditions (physical and mental), behaviors affecting health, public health, population health, medical care, health policies, or biomedical science. For the purposes of this document, a source is an entity that provides health information through one or more social media channels with that entity's brand. A channel is a private forum in which a source can share content (text, visual, video or audio) and interact with social media users who choose to “follow” or “subscribe to that channel, as well as with users who discover content through the “recommended” content algorithms of search engines or SMPs. Based on the definitions and analysis mentioned above, the authors define a credible source of health information as “a source that is likely to provide high-quality information and employs processes to reduce conflicts of interest and promote transparency and accountability.”.
The use of the word “probable” in this definition reinforces the idea that the credibility of the source does not necessarily equal the quality of the information, but it remains a useful indicator for consumers. Based on their collection and deliberation of information, the authors developed the following fundamental principles to guide the identification of credible sources of health information on social networks. Sources must provide information that is consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time and meet standards for creating, reviewing, and presenting scientific content. This principle reflects the authors' conviction that scientific evidence is the only reliable indicator of health outcomes and, therefore, should be the basis for health information provided to consumers.
There are a number of attributes (p. Sources must take steps to reduce the influence of financial and other conflicts of interest or biases that may compromise or perceive as compromising the quality of the information they provide. This principle recognizes that all sources have inherent COI or biases. However, to be considered credible, sources must strive to separate the presentation of health information from profit motives and other biases (p.
Sources must also disclose conflicts, as stated in the following principle. Sources must disclose the limitations of the information they provide, as well as conflicts of interest, content errors or procedural errors. The final principle recognizes the fallibility of both organizations, which cannot eliminate the IOC and errors, and of science itself. At the frontiers of understanding, scientific knowledge changes over time as more evidence becomes available and existing evidence is analyzed in new ways.
Scientific evidence, however rigorous, can never guarantee a specific outcome for each individual or each context. In addition, black, indigenous and colored groups (BIPOC) and other groups, such as LGBTQIA+ people and people with disabilities, are underrepresented in organizations that traditionally consider themselves authorities on science, meaning that the best available science may not fully reflect their experiences (discussed in more detail in “Structural Bias”). Using fundamental principles as a basis, the authors identified a set of attributes that generally describe credible sources of health information (see Table). Not all sources can show all attributes, but this should not prevent an overall assessment of credibility.
For example, a professional association may have a lobbying arm, which is contrary to one of the attributes of the “objective principle”. However, the same organization could have a research arm that aligns almost or completely with the attributes of the “science-based principle”. In addition, this organization can clearly disclose its lobbying activities to the public and maintain a strict barrier between political messages and health information addressed to the public, thus aligning with the attributes of the principle of “transparency and accountability”. To avoid paralysis of perfection, the authors believe that general alignment with the principles and attributes listed in Table 1, together with full disclosure of any deviations, could serve as a reliable initial signal of a source's credibility.
As noted in the following sections, some types of sources are subject to pre-existing, standardized research mechanisms that indicate such alignment. However, credibility problems still exist with these types of sources as a whole. All sources must publicly disclose deviations from principles and attributes and be subject to other strategies to ensure the quality of information (described later in this document). A very wide range of EE.
UU. Government or nonprofit sources provide health information through social networks, including professional societies, healthcare organizations, public health departments, universities, study centers, philanthropic organizations, medical journals, grassroots community organizations, state, local, tribal, and territorial government health agencies, and more. The scope and size of these sources vary dramatically. Evaluating the credibility of each individual, although it is a worthy final objective, is not feasible as a first step.
Therefore, just as evaluating the credibility of sources (versus the quality of information) is offered as an entry point to a broader task, the evaluation of source categories (versus individual sources) is an initial tactic for evaluating credibility at scale. Several categories of sources are subject to pre-existing, standardized selection mechanisms that indicate a general alignment with the fundamental principles and attributes of the authors. Therefore, SMPs may consider that sources in these categories are likely to be credible. However, these research mechanisms do not exactly match the principles and attributes and reflect varying degrees of rigor.
In addition, there are credibility issues related to each of these categories, as indicated in the following sections. Therefore, sources in these categories should be subject to additional research by SMPs (and also, perhaps, by independent third parties, as explained below), including some form of content review, as they refine their approaches to source evaluation. Accreditation is a voluntary process by which an organization obtains a formal rating as proof of its ability to meet quality and performance standards established by an accreditor. While processes vary considerably depending on the accreditor, accreditation is generally an intensive evaluation involving extensive documentation and a site visit.
Accreditation standards are established based on research and evidence that demonstrates what qualities are associated with the highest degree of organizational effectiveness and the best possible outcomes for patients and other beneficiaries. Since organizations must regularly apply for re-accreditation (p. e.g.,. Accreditors provide publicly accessible lists of organizations that have obtained accreditation and, in some cases, of organizations that have not obtained or maintained it.
The accreditors themselves are dedicated to continuous quality improvement and are required to perform at a high level based on their recognition by federal authorities, such as the Department of Education. In some cases, accreditors may be sponsored by relevant professional associations, which may suggest changes in policies to ensure that the accreditation criteria are updated. For example, the Association of American Medical Schools and the American Medical Association jointly sponsor the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools. In another example, 26% of the Medicare Centers Medicaid Services (CMS) grant “evaluation authority” to the accreditors of approved healthcare organizations.
Considering authority means that accreditation can replace inspection by a state agency to determine if a health care organization is eligible to receive payments from Medicare and Medicaid programs. The Department of Education provides a list of accreditors that are “recognized by the Secretary” as trustworthy authorities regarding the quality of education or training offered by the higher education institutions or higher education programs they accredit. Together, accredited organizations, accrediting organizations, and collaborating organizations function as a network that supports consistent, high-performance standards, continuous evaluation and improvement, and public transparency and accountability, although these characteristics are not specific to the context of the exchange of health information through social networks. The categories of accredited organizations that serve as sources of health information for the public include educational institutions (universities and schools of the health professions), health care organizations, health plans, and public health departments (see box 5 for a summary and table B-1 in the appendix for a list of accreditors and what accreditation means for organizations in each category).
Health professions, schools, and other educational institutions As noted above, the accreditation mechanisms discussed in this section do not assess the credibility of an organization as a source of health information on social media. Rather, they affirm the overall credibility of an organization in its role as a provider of a specific service, such as education or healthcare. Accredited organizations may not always adhere to authors' credibility principles and criteria (not-for-profit health plans and outpatient care facilities, for example, may be subject to strong profit motives). In addition, accreditation may not be an option for all sources of high-quality health information.
Therefore, accreditation is an imperfect indicator for evaluating the credibility of an organization as a source of health information and should be considered as a preliminary indicator. In addition, there is enormous variation in the rigor and scope of accreditation programs, so accreditation does not imply adherence to a common standard of credibility. It should also be noted that some accreditation programs offer accreditation to organizations that do not share high-quality health information, as defined by the authors. For these reasons, accreditation cannot serve as a comprehensive assessment of credibility as a source of health information and must be complemented by other forms of verification.
Academic journals are academic periodicals that publish research or reports specific to a profession or field of study. Many magazines promote their publications through social networks; in addition, journalists summarize magazine articles and share their main findings through social networks. Academic journals are generally affiliated with educational institutions or professional associations. Although they exercise editorial independence, many are owned by for-profit publishing companies, such as Elsevier.
Despite rigorous editorial and scientific review processes, journals sometimes allow the publication of articles that contain errors or erroneous information, some of which may later be retracted. A social media user who consumes information from such articles may never find out about their retraction. In addition, entities that report research published in a journal or other source may introduce errors or excessive simplifications without realizing it, given the brief and ephemeral nature of social media content, given the brief and ephemeral nature of social media content. Taken together, these credibility issues require an aggressive and sustained effort to educate consumers of health information about the nature of scientific experimentation, the quality assurance processes supported by academic journals and, in general, the factors by which they can judge the credibility of the source and the quality of the information.
The need for such an effort is discussed in more detail in the next section. The increased use and popularity of preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic adds a level of complexity to the discussion about academic journals as credible sources of health information, given the ease with which preprint research can be confused with articles that have undergone formal peer review and editorial oversight. However, preprint servers such as MedRxiv (and, by extension, articles containing a pre-print citation) do not follow all of the authors' principles and criteria for obtaining credible sources of health information described in this document. Public transparency laws reinforce this responsibility.
For example, the Freedom of Information Act requires the release, upon public request, of federally controlled documents (with specific exceptions), allowing for independent examination and criticism of government information. The Federal Accountability and Funding Transparency Act requires the disclosure of information about any organization that receives federal funding, while the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act sets standards for the availability of this information on the federal website USASpending, gov. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that federal government advisory committees operate in an open and transparent manner so that the public can access and review the information generated by these groups. Government agencies that receive a certain level of funding for research (internal or external) must make research results (for example, in journal articles) available to the public free of charge.
In addition, many outside groups monitor information published by the government. Many categories of nonprofit organizations that are not subject to standardized research mechanisms serve as sources of health information. Some adhere to rigorous standards that align with the principles and attributes described in this document, and others do not. There is no pre-existing standardized mechanism for evaluating the credibility of sources in this category (although there are individual mechanisms).
Therefore, SMPs that wish to assess the credibility of such sources should develop a standardized process for evaluating alignment with the principles and attributes identified in this document. Table 2 lists the types of organizations that share health information (excluding healthcare organizations, health plans, government organizations, and public health departments), along with the authors' general observations on the credibility of organizations in each category, based on principles and attributes. To assess the credibility of sources that are not subject to pre-existing standardized research mechanisms that align with authors' principles and attributes, SMPs would need to collect and evaluate a standardized dataset. The means of data collection could be primary or secondary (that is,.
For example, collecting primary data could mean using technology to “crawl” a source's website for evidence of citations, peer review processes, COI disclosures, etc. The collection of secondary data could take the form of a section of attributes and credibility disclosures that a source could provide to an SMP and publish publicly on the home page of their social media channels. This latter approach would require that sources regulate themselves and comply with an informal “honor system” or “code of ethics”. For example, a source would have to decide whether the content of an advertisement published together with health information constitutes a conflict of interest that could compromise the quality of that information.
On the other hand, as mentioned above, sources that are subject to such standardized vetting mechanisms can be given a preliminary assumption of credibility, as can government organizations, by virtue of their strict accountability practices. However, even sources from these groups must strive to show a preponderance of authors' credibility attributes and to publicly disclose any deviations (in addition to being subject to parallel content evaluation, as described below). For any type of source, the SMP approach to credibility assessment should include a human-led quality assurance (QA) program. Algorithms and other automated technologies are not likely to be able to assess every nuance of credibility attributes.
The quality control system must verify alignment with the credibility attributes of the source, as well as the quality of the information shared. To ensure that consumers have access to high-quality health information, it is essential to conduct some form of content evaluation as a complement to source evaluation. While this document does not provide guidance on principles or mechanisms for content evaluation, the authors urge SMPs to invest in research and analysis to rapidly develop capacities in this area. Priority should be given to high-volume and influential sources of health information.
A particularly promising possibility that SMPs would consider would be to outsource quality control functions to an independent third party, either pre-existing or created for this purpose. This approach would reinforce the objectivity and integrity of the process by reducing the role of SMPs, which inevitably come into conflict because of their financial and political interest in the performance of the system. To maximize independence and objectivity, this third-party organization should not be funded solely by a single SMP. SMPs must also monitor the policies of counterpart social media companies, both to know how their own content can be repackaged on other platforms (that is,.
The increase in credible sources of health information, while an important contribution, is not sufficient on its own to counteract the harm of disinformation and disinformation. SMPs must maintain parallel strategies to address such false and inaccurate information, as well as the sources that deliberately promulgate such information. It is true that managing disinformation is a very complex challenge, both from a political and legal point of view, so obtaining credible sources and high-quality information is a potentially more feasible priority. As noted earlier, the state of science and knowledge is constantly evolving, and information that was once consistent with the best evidence available at the time can quickly become obsolete.
Credible sources can avoid the perception of misinformation by using clear date labels and striving to update content regularly. Regardless of what system is established to increase credible sources and high-quality information, consumers will continue to make their own judgments about what sources and information to trust. In fact, one of the main themes of the public comment period, summarized in box 2, was that SMPs must protect freedom of expression and the autonomy of users to access the information of their choice. Therefore, SMPs must invest in evidence-based consumer education and health literacy strategies to support the success of their internal approaches to increasing credible sources and high-quality information.
These strategies could be designed and executed by the platforms themselves, but a better approach might be to delegate them to independent third parties. As with efforts to promote health literacy and consumer education, SMPs should consider providing financial support for such efforts in order to promote competent communication through credible sources on their platforms. Social scientists in the fields of health science, risk and communication would be productive partners for SMPs in this work. Instead of waiting for SMPs to evaluate them, sources of health information that wish to be considered credible must take proactive steps to apply science-based, objective, transparent and responsible principles to their institutional practices and to the presentation of information.
The principles and attributes set out in this document can provide a useful starting point, as well as other resources (including those described in Box 3 and Appendix A). By making these efforts transparent and highly visible to the public and their peers, organizations can begin to build a cultural, self-sufficient “norm” for credibility that can ultimately increase the amount of high-quality information on social networks and have a cascading effect on the quality of information, both online and online. Just as building trust must be a priority for credible sources of health information, ensuring the credibility of highly reliable and influential sources must be a primary concern for SMPs and other stakeholders interested in public health and health communication. In an effort to ensure that the guidance in this document increases access to high-quality health information, thereby promoting health and minimizing harm, the authors have also described ethical and public health considerations for the approach described in this document.
Information control emerged as a key concern during the public comment period. Efforts by SMPs to increase access to high-quality information (by promoting credible sources) may be perceived as censorship or as an attempt to limit the autonomy of information consumers (see box). Platforms should strive to involve consumers in the design and evaluation of such strategies and to maintain public transparency around the policies and measures adopted. Policies must balance the need to minimize harm that could occur through the spread of health misinformation (as seen during the COVID-19 pandemic) with the consumer's right to make a personal assessment and judgment.
To counteract this bias and increase equity and representation, SMPs must make a concerted effort to identify and promote sources that are not only credible, but also trustworthy and used by diverse audiences, including BIPOC and other groups, such as new immigrants, LGBTQIA+ people, religious minorities, and people with disabilities. SMPs must evaluate consumer data to identify the sources that marginalized groups use to a large extent and prioritize them to assess their credibility and increase their potential. Partnerships with groups that represent the rights and health of those groups will be essential to the success of this effort. A system that increases credible sources of health information can create a new brand of “credibility” that is cost-effective for both the sources and the SMP themselves.
As established in the authors' principles and criteria, credible sources must take steps to ensure that financial and ideological interests do not compromise the presentation of scientifically based health information. However, financial gains and increased influence can be inevitable side effects of being designated as a credible source on social media channels. SMPs should support research to understand the impact of credibility designations on the quality of information shared by sources, on the level of influence of sources both inside and outside social networks, and on the financial status of sources. Announcements should not be attached to high-quality health information shared through SMPs, both to minimize financial conflicts of interest and to avoid compromising the quality and accessibility of information (p.
To maintain their integrity, SMPs should separate, as far as possible, their own profit motives from efforts to increase credible sources of health information. One way to achieve this would be for the platforms to work with independent third parties to design and implement strategies for evaluating and moderating sources and content. The complexity of the interests of SMPs deserves careful consideration of their role as moderators of health and other crucial public information. While the authors believe that SMPs should play a proactive role in several dimensions, as described in this document, government regulation and delegation to independent third parties should also be considered as possible complementary approaches.
A system must be designed to increase credible sources and, therefore, increase access to high-quality health information to support health equity, as well as equity in information, and not to consolidate existing inequities. Diversity and inclusion are important components of a system that promotes health equity. As noted earlier in the “Structural Bias” section, efforts to eliminate racial prejudice and encourage diverse representation among credible sources of health information are important to prevent the perpetuation of health inequities. The digital divide is an important consideration for SMPs, as well as for other platforms that facilitate the exchange of health information.
If efforts to increase access to high-quality health information disproportionately benefit wealthy, and highly educated white people, then they are consolidating inequities in health and information. SMPs can be important partners in improving public health, but only if they agree to share data (p. Background data, algorithms and usage (participation metrics, content moderation processes) with researchers. This document provides guidance that aims to increase access to high-quality health information and, therefore, promote individual and population health.
However, SMPs alone have access to data that could form the basis for important health and behavioral research on how policies such as those discussed here would actually affect the consumption of high-quality health information, and whether greater access to such information would have a favorable impact on line outcomes. In addition to sharing such data, as described above, SMPs must be transparent about the methods they use to promote the consumption of high-quality health information (p. As noted above, health misinformation and misinformation disseminated through social networks can have a negative impact on health outcomes, and SMPs must take responsibility and develop solutions to mitigate the elements of their systems that allow such information to thrive. The reluctance or failure of SMPs to share such data and moderation methods would prevent fully productive collaborations with public health and behavioral science communities.
To be considered credible, platforms must make a public and highly visible commitment to transparency and accountability, especially with regard to data, policies and methods that could affect public health. This document presents guidance that SMPs could use to identify credible sources of health information, a gradual step toward the goal of improving access to high-quality health information. While the scope of this debate has been limited to the U.S. Efforts to fully assess the credibility of these sources, many of which are very influential, should be an urgent priority for SMPs.
However, source assessment is not a comprehensive solution. Several parallel strategies are required to ensure the quality of information and combat the risks of health misinformation, as detailed above. The most important of these is a strategy for evaluating the quality of information and developing content moderation plans in response. The authors recognize the impossibility of evaluating the accuracy and balance of every health information on social networks.
However, a system of “spot checks” for quality and integrity, backed by machine learning technology but complemented by expert human evaluation, is at hand. SMPs must invest in the development of principles, guidelines, and applications for content evaluation, along with strategies for evaluating sources. Ultimately, the two approaches must be consolidated into a single system for identifying and improving high-quality health information. As noted above, SMP efforts in these areas should be complemented by government regulation or delegation to independent third parties.
SMPs cannot, and should not, address this challenge on their own. As those who are ultimately affected by social media source or content selection strategies, consumers must participate in the development of those strategies. Public participation is also essential to promote transparency, build trust, and minimize perceptions of censorship or paternalism. Organizations that use social networks to share information also have an important role and must make themselves publicly responsible for a set of principles that support the quality of the information they share, as well as their own institutional credibility.
Taken together, measures taken by consumers, organizations, and SMPs can move toward greater availability and accessibility of high-quality health information. Finally, consumers and organizations that use social networks deserve to understand the mechanics and outcomes of policies that affect the information they receive and share. Therefore, SMPs must adopt source and content moderation practices (p. Without that information, consumers and organizations that collaborate with SMPs will have no way of knowing if the policies are justified or effective.
To be effective partners in improving health, SMPs must be firmly committed to transparency and accountability. This article was based on the thoughtful reflections of Anita Allen, of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; Lindsay Diamond, of Community Immunity; Jennifer Kavanagh, of the RAND Corporation; Laurie Myers, of Merck; Camille Nebeker, of the University of California, San Diego; and Dietram Scheufele, of the University of Wisconsin—Madison. In addition, the authors would like to acknowledge the contributions of Brooke Bergen, of the Association of American Medical Schools (AAMC); Justin DeJong, of the American Medical Association (AMA); April Finnen, USA. Food and Drug Administration; Lisa Fitzpatrick, Grapevine Health; Caitlin Ganet, AMA; Darren Taichman, New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM); Prarthana Vasudevan, Johns Hopkins University Health Security Center; Stephanie Weiner, AAMC; and Jennifer Zeis, NEJM.
The authors also wish to recognize the contributions of Laura DeStefano, of the National Academy of Medicine (NAM); Jenna Ogilvie, of the NAM; Holly Rhodes, of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; David Butler, of the National Academy of Engineering; Steve Olson; and Frank Walsh, of McCabe Message Partners. The National Library of Medicine (NLM), the world's largest medical library, uses strict criteria to determine if a journal should be included in MEDLINE, the NLM's main bibliographic database. MEDLINE is the main component of PubMed, an open-access online bibliographic database developed and maintained by the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) of the NLM, with new citations added daily. When considering whether a journal deserves to be included in MEDLINE, the NLM considers “the scientific and editorial character and quality of a journal”.
To make this decision, several factors are used, including the scientific policy established by the NLM Board of Regents, the suitability of the journal for the NLM Collection, and the recommendations of an NIH federal advisory committee, the Technical Review and Literature Selection Committee (LSTRC). By using such clear and detailed guidelines for its journal selection process, the objective of the NLM with MEDLINE is to demonstrate a high level of scientific rigor and, at the same time, reflect sufficient geographical heterogeneity. MedlinePlus information is reviewed and updated in accordance with the guidelines developed for each type of page. Health topics are “updated” as new information becomes available, and broken links are reviewed and corrected daily.
Medical tests are reviewed at least every 3 years, although the content is also updated as needed between review cycles. Genetics pages are reviewed by subject matter experts before they are published in MedlinePlus and with each subsequent substantial revision, and patient support and defense groups provide feedback on select content. MedlinePlus also adds new and updated articles and illustrations to A, D, A, M journals. Medical encyclopedia every month and an A, D, A, M.
The editorial policy ensures that the included content presents evidence-based health information. In addition to these criteria for resources linked to MedlinePlus, for all MedlinePlus pages, a “date of last revision of the page” is available near the bottom of the page to indicate “when the entire topic was reviewed and updated”, while the “date the page was last updated” indicates when information was added or removed from the health topic page. These additional indicators allow users to verify the validity of the content they are consuming. The Health on the Net (HON) Foundation is an international not-for-profit organization based in Switzerland.
The HON Code of Conduct (HONcode) was created to help standardize the reliability of medical and health information available online by defining a set of rules to hold website developers accountable in accordance with basic ethical standards in the presentation of information. This voluntary certification system is based on an “active seal” concept that helps users identify reliable sources of information. To determine if a site meets these standards, sites seeking certification complete an interactive online questionnaire that tells them what to add or modify to comply with HONcode principles. A member of the HON team then inspects the site to verify compliance.
Once a site has been verified, it is identified by the blue and red seal of the HONcode (or “active”) hyperlink that is displayed in a prominent place, usually at the bottom of the home page. The sites that subscribe to are subject to unannounced checks by HON to ensure continued compliance, and HON also relies on user reports to maintain the reliability of the website. The URAC offers evidence-based accreditation programs to healthcare organizations, including the certification of providers of health content and health websites. URAC accreditation involves a five-phase voluntary process that requires new accreditation every 3 years and is designed to facilitate continuous quality improvement.
In the first phase, applicants provide URAC with standard information about their organization, as well as specific information related to the type of certification they are seeking. In the second phase, a principal reviewer evaluates submitted documents to determine if they meet URAC standards. During this step, the principal reviewer can provide recommendations to the applicant on how to review an application to comply with URAC policies. The third phase involves a review of the on-site validation to ensure that the organization is following standards in practice.
In the fourth step, the URAC review team submits an anonymous report to a voluntary accreditation committee. This team of health experts is familiar with URAC standards and determines whether an organization receives full or partial accreditation. The final phase of the accreditation process includes ongoing monitoring, such as random surveillance and mandatory reporting of quality measures. In all certification programs, URAC uses these five phases to focus on risk management, operations infrastructure, monitoring and improving performance, and consumer protection and empowerment.
Then, specific certification standards are designed to further support these objectives. For example, the health content provider accreditation process examines key areas such as outreach, content and delivery of health services, the quality oversight committee, policies and procedures, health content, and personal health management and accountability. On the contrary, factors that influence obtaining accreditation for a health website include privacy and security, editorial processes for health content, disclosure of financial relationships, website link policies, and consumer complaint processes. In order to improve the accessibility of reliable health information on its platform, YouTube asked the National Academy of Medicine (NAM) to identify preliminary definitions of “authorized sources” of health information and the criteria by which these sources derive and maintain their authority.
The NAM project will also describe ethical and public health considerations for large-scale content curation strategies. YouTube has informed NAM that the results of this project will help YouTube identify and collect “authorized” sources of health information, but will not harm sources that do not meet the requirements of specific authorized source categories. In addition, the NAM understands that YouTube will identify and characterize such “authorized” sources in order to provide context to users, but will not confer a formal designation of authority or reliability at the source level. The project will also generate principles that can be useful for online platforms other than YouTube.
Once the comment period is over, an anonymous summary of the comments received through this process will be published on the project website. The NAM reserves the right to ignore comments it deems off-topic or inappropriate. To leave a comment, complete the form below. Do you want to receive email updates about this project? * The opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and not necessarily those of author organizations, the National Academy of Medicine (NAM), the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies), or the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
The document is intended to help inform and stimulate debate. It is not a report by the NAM or the National Academies. Stacey Arnesen, National Library of Medicine. Wen-Ying Sylvia Chou, National Cancer Institute.
National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Accessibility Help Careers. For nearly four decades, the Colorado Association of Nonprofit Organizations has been the voice of the nonprofit industry, working to defend, educate and connect our members, strengthening their capacity to do their transformative work. If teachers are employees of a nonprofit organization (they file the forms W-2 provided by the organization along with their taxes each year), there are federal and state regulations that the organization must meet, including minimum wage requirements. That changed recently, and now they say they have revised their policies so that the parent organization has retroactively claimed the funds designated to be placed in a general pooled fund to support all of the organization's operating expenses.
For example, a platform could identify a source as an “accredited healthcare organization” and provide a link to a definition of that type of organization, including general credibility observations, such as those in table 1.As the future of work evolves, the Colorado Workforce Development Council, the CDLE, the Office of Economic Development and International Trade, and the Colorado Economic Development Council have teamed up to launch the Colorado Remote Work Initiative. NAM is an organization whose influence is due in part to its reputation as a credible source of health information. Some non-profit organizations include a disclaimer in their requests to the effect that the organization reserves the right to allocate money as needed to avoid the situation it is in now. The organization has recently received large amounts of designated applications, which, according to the director, are all deposited in a general fund and not in separate accounts.
The organization received contributions from the requests and it was later determined that the funds received were used for purposes other than those described in the appeal letters and emails. This multi-tiered initiative will ensure that Coloradans are equipped to compete in remote work environments by strengthening Colorado's ability to attract jobs, secure talent and retain a location-neutral workforce. .
