How to Critically Analyze Health Information
“Click me! Watch me! Like me! Share me!” The headlines, reals, and posts scream.
In our increasingly digital world, our attention spans have become a form of currency. More clicks and more views = more money. While it’s always been important to think critically about the media we consume, this skill is even more important in our attention economy. If we want to be well-informed about health (or any topic) news and advice, we must carefully evaluate the content and context of what we read, watch, and hear.
Although these strategies are not an exhaustive list, I have compiled some critical analysis strategies I use when critically reading, watching, and listening to media. I would love to hear your strategies in the comments below!
Some term clarification: In this context, the word “critical” does not always mean being “negative” or “knit-picky”, but rather, it means using a careful and deep approach to evaluating and analyzing media.
Be careful of absolutes and extremes
For example, always, never, the best, the worst, etc.
While there are some exceptions (i.e. “smoking cigarettes is never a good idea” or “always wear your seatbelt”), absolutes and extremes usually signify a lack of nuance.
When I come across this type of phrasing it makes me think the author didn’t do enough research or didn’t critically think about how there’s usually no one size fits all, especially when it comes to health and wellbeing. These words can also lead to perfectionism if we believe there is only one right way to be healthy.
Correlation vs. Causation
This might be the poster child for reading statistics critically. Just because two elements are correlated (ex. rise and fall either together or inversely) does not mean one causes the other.
Pay close attention to how the author phrases the connection between two things and whether they acknowledge the difference between correlation and causation.
In health research, it’s often very difficult to prove causation.
Correlational can tell us about the relationship between different elements but it is a type of statistical analysis that is distinct from causation.
Consider Potential Bias
Ask yourself what biases the author(s) have. It’s impossible for someone to have no biases but consider if the writer’s bias is strong enough to impact the credibility of their content.
A classic example is funding. Did a pharmaceutical company pay for the study or did an independent third-party fund the study?
Consider whether you’re reading a primary or secondary source. For example, a peer-reviewed research report is a primary source versus a book analyzing and consolidating multiple studies would be a secondary source.
What is the author’s purpose/writing style?
For example, is it to inform, persuade, opinion piece, etc.?
If it’s to inform, does the author try to remain neutral? Do they acknowledge multiple sides to an issue? Do they back up their information with credible sources?
If it’s to persuade, I will probably give the author more leeway in expressing their bias since they are trying to persuade me of their viewpoint after all. However, I will be critical of the sources backing up their claims and I appreciate when they give a little nod to the limitations of their perspective.
If it’s an opinion piece do they acknowledge it as such or do they try to pass off their opinion as fact? Reading opinion and/or personal experience pieces can be very interesting, validating, and even cause me to challenge my own opinions and assumptions but generalizing one person’s experiences to an entire population is irresponsible.
Does the author provide sources to back up their claims?
Making claims without providing sources is a huge red flag. And then if sources are provided, are the sources credible? For example, a peer-reviewed research article with a large sample-size and third party funding stating sugar intake negatively impacts blood sugar is much more credible to me than a study funded by the sugar industry that says sugar is good for us.
Another post coming soon on evaluating primary sources!
Can you find other credible sources saying something similar?
Sometimes research is so new there won’t yet be a ton of other sources but new research usually builds upon previous studies.
This is also not to say that as science and technology gets better we never discover past research was wrong.
But in general, evaluate what the scientific consensus says and think critically about how new and/or conflicting research results could be explained. There might even be a really good reason the old research was wrong (ahem they only studied biological men for example). Basically what I’m trying to say here is think critically about everything! Warning: once you start doing this, it’s really hard to stop haha.
I also want to acknowledge that there can also be wisdom found in indigenous societies that isn’t backed by research and that doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t true.
Are you only looking for sources that confirm your point of view?
It’s easy to fall into the trap of confirmation bias, consuming content that backs up what we already believe.
But to truly make an informed decision it’s important to at least expose ourselves to multiple points of view and attempt to understand why others might think differently.
Does the author acknowledge the unknown? Or what is missing?
A big green flag for me is when an author acknowledges that we don’t know everything or mentions gaps in the research.
This tells me they’re thinking critically about the sources they used and makes me more likely to trust their analysis of the topic.
Ask questions
If you remember nothing else from this article, I hope you take away the importance of asking questions. Positive questions, negative questions, and everything in between.
Asking questions and finding answers are how we can thoroughly analyze and evaluate the health news and media we encounter.
