About Betterhealth
A More Considered Approach to Wellness Information
Betterhealth exists to make health and wellness information easier to evaluate. This page explains how we choose sources, handle uncertainty, fix mistakes and think about the tools we offer.
Our editorial purpose
Health information is everywhere, and much of it is hard to judge. Our goal is not to tell you what to do. It is to explain what a claim rests on, how strong that support is, and what questions to bring to a professional who knows your situation.
We write for a U.S. audience, so we point to American public-health resources and note when coverage, guidelines or terminology are specific to this country.
Editorial independence
Editorial decisions are meant to be made separately from any commercial interest.
- Topics are chosen for reader usefulness, not for a product or sponsor.
- Where a commercial relationship ever exists, it should be disclosed plainly near the content it touches.
- Guides do not recommend specific supplements, devices or brands.
Research and source selection
We prefer primary research and institutional sources over commentary about them. When we evaluate a source, we look at the following.
- Peer-reviewed research
- Study design, sample size, who was studied and whether results have been replicated.
- U.S. public-health bodies
- Agencies such as the CDC, NIH and FDA, and guideline groups such as the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.
- Professional societies
- Clinical organizations whose recommendations may differ from one another and change over time.
- Secondary coverage
- Used to find leads, never as the only support for a claim.
Fact-checking and corrections
Our process is practical rather than ceremonial, and it centers on four habits.
Step 1
Match claims to sources
Each factual statement should trace to a named kind of source.
Step 2
Flag uncertainty
Mixed or early evidence is described as such.
Step 3
Review reader reports
Reported errors are checked against the original sources.
Step 4
Update and note it
Confirmed errors are fixed, and significant changes are noted.
Found a mistake? Tell us how to report it.
Evidence, uncertainty and context
A single study seldom establishes that one thing causes another. Observational studies can show that two things travel together without showing why, and trials can be too small or too short to settle a question.
Why individual situations differ
Averages describe groups. Age, medical history, medications, genetics and circumstances all change what a finding means for one person, which is why our guides end by pointing readers back to their clinicians.
Preventive health standards
Recommendations for screening, vaccination and checkups often depend on age, medical history and personal risk, and they are revised as evidence changes. Where our guides discuss them, we describe how the system works and direct you to current guidance rather than listing fixed ages that may go out of date.
Responsible use of wellness tools
Our calculators are planning utilities with visible formulas and self-reported answers. They do not diagnose, screen for disease or predict outcomes. Use them to organize your thinking, then take real concerns to a licensed professional. Open the tools.
Transparency and reader accountability
We hold ourselves to a few commitments we can actually keep.
We say what we are
A general-information publication, not a medical provider, and we do not claim credentials we do not have.
We welcome challenges
Readers can question any claim and ask for the source behind it.
We limit data
Tool inputs are processed in your browser and are not intentionally sent to a server.
See the standards in practice
Read a guide to see how we handle evidence and limits, or write to the editors with a correction or a question.