The Importance of Being Critical Viewers of Health Information

Posted: March 11, 2024 | Author: Savannah Price | Read Time: 5 minutes

This week at the SUU Health and Wellness Center, we want to focus on why it’s important to have personal Health Literacy when it comes to viewing and interpreting information online. Information about health and wellness can be confusing, especially online or if you don’t have someone to help interpret the technical jargon that exists in the health profession. Luckily, there are some things we can do to mitigate the gap between what we currently know and what we want to understand. The Center for Disease Control (CDC) has this to say about Health Literacy, “Health literacy is important for everyone because, at some point in our lives, we all need to be able to find, understand, and use health information and services. Taking care of our health is part of everyday life, not just when we visit a doctor, clinic, or hospital. Health literacy can help us prevent health problems, protect our health, and better manage health problems when they arise.”

So, what exactly is Health Literacy? The CDC defines it as, “the degree to which individuals have the ability to find, understand, and use information and services to inform health-related decisions and actions for themselves and others.” In our modern world, it’s critical that we understand how our health information relates to us, and more importantly, what we can do with this new knowledge.

One of the biggest factors in viewing health information critically is knowing when to ask critical questions. The National Library of Medicine (NLM) states that we should take an “analytical approach” when viewing health related information. They call this argumentation theory, which is defined as “the body of knowledge that deals with the study of arguments; that is, of claims supported by reasons.” Put simply, argumentation theory is the study of how to support claims through reason and whether this support is sound or unsound.

The NLM reveals that there are three primary types of argument schemes, defined as “a template that indicates a specific connection between the claim and the supporting reason/s.” They each have their own name, as listed below.

The first argument scheme is named symptomatic argumentation, which argues “a claim can be supported by citing in its reasons a particular sign, symptom, or distinguishing mark of what is claimed.” If a person claims “This person is right about COVID-19 because he is a doctor,” they are arguing that “the fact that this person is a doctor is presented as a sign of the quality of what he says about COVID-19.” Though this argument is supported by a claim, the support given is less sound upon taking a closer look at the claim and its situation. Doctors are experts in specific fields, not in general health practices. Being a doctor does not mean that any one opinion is the correct one about COVID-19.

The second type of argument scheme is based on comparison relation, given by providing examples of similar cases to support a claim, and therefore should be accepted for its resemblance to the given claim. For example, if someone claimed “The COVID-19 vaccine is dangerous because past vaccines have also been found to be dangerous,” they are arguing that “the comparison with other vaccines is a reason for supporting the danger of the COVID-19 vaccine.” From a distance, this argument and its claim seem sound, but upon closer inspection, this comparison is not equitable for many reasons. The first is that there is no evidence given as to what the other “dangerous previous vaccines” are, nor are we given evidence as to what the dangers were. Analogies always work through comparison, therefore we must be careful in our analysis of the compared claims and the validity of those statements.

The third and final type of argument scheme is named causal relation, “where the claim is supported by making a causal connection between itself and its grounding reason.” In the following claim we can see how the events are said as if to claim causation: “Some people contracted COVID-19 because they used 5G technologies.” While similarities can potentially be seen in this argument, the main critical question to be asked here is: does using 5G technology really lead to COVID-19? There is no scientific evidence that supports any link between these two claims, because the cause is unproven, the argument is therefore unsound.

So, let’s recap what we’ve learned. First, being a critical viewer of health information helps us to be educated in health related topics, and allows us to make educated decisions about our own health. Second, having literacy in health related information is important because it allows us to ask critical questions about claims made about health information, and helps us to know how we can better use this information in our daily lives. And third, the three types of argument schemes, namely symptomatic argumentation, comparison relation, and causal relation are structures that we can use to break down supporting claims to discover if an argument is sound or unsound. This is why asking critical questions and finding base in sound or unsound arguments is crucial to understanding and interpreting health related information.

If you have any other questions about health literacy, asking critical questions about health related topics, or want to know more about what we can do here at SUU to help you feel supported in your journey to become a critical viewer of Health Information, feel free to stop by the Health and Wellness Center in the Sharwan Smith Student Center (ST) 175A! We would love to get to know more about your questions and how to help you!

Tags: Health and Wellness