Finding & evaluating help, support & health information
Health & PE · Year 9
Name: ______________________Date: ____________
Knowing how to find genuinely reliable help and health information — and how to critically evaluate it — is an important life skill, especially as more health information is encountered online, often mixed with misinformation or biased sources. Reliable help and support services (like a school counsellor, a doctor, or a reputable youth health service) can be distinguished from unreliable ones by checking who runs them, whether they're backed by evidence or qualified professionals, and whether they're genuinely designed to help rather than sell a product. Critiquing health information targeted at young people — around topics like substance use, food choices, fitness, mental health or sexual health — means asking whether a source is credible, current and free from a conflicting commercial interest, rather than accepting a claim just because it's popular or confidently stated.
Example
A social media post claiming a specific supplement will dramatically improve mental health, posted by an account that also sells that exact supplement, should raise a red flag — the commercial interest behind the claim is a strong reason to seek out independent, evidence-based information instead, such as from a reputable health service or a doctor.
Key terms
Credible source:
A source that is trustworthy, backed by evidence or genuine expertise.
Conflicting commercial interest:
A financial motive that could bias information toward benefiting the source rather than the person seeking help.
Questions
1. A credible source of health information is:
Trustworthy and backed by evidence or genuine expertise
Always the most popular source, regardless of accuracy
Never something that needs to be checked
Automatically anything found online
2. A conflicting commercial interest means:
A financial motive that could bias information
A source with no financial connection to what it recommends
Something that always makes information more accurate
Irrelevant to evaluating health information
3. A reliable help service can often be identified by checking:
Who runs it and whether it is backed by qualified professionals
Only how popular the service is
Only how flashy its advertising is
Nothing about who is actually behind it
4. Health misinformation online is:
A real risk when searching for health information
Something that never occurs online
Always clearly labelled as false
Impossible to encounter
5. An account selling a product while claiming it solves a health problem should raise:
A red flag about potential bias
No concern whatsoever
Automatic full trust
A guarantee of complete accuracy
6. A school counsellor is an example of:
A reliable source of help and support
An unreliable, unqualified source
A source with a commercial motive
Something unrelated to student wellbeing
7. Critiquing health information means asking whether it is:
Credible, current, and free from conflicting interest
Automatically true because it sounds confident
Popular, regardless of accuracy
Something that should never be questioned
8. Why might a confidently worded claim on social media still be unreliable, even if it sounds convincing?
Confidence in how something is stated has no bearing on whether it is actually accurate or evidence-based
Confident wording always guarantees a claim is true
Social media claims are always automatically backed by solid evidence
The way a claim is worded has no relevance to evaluating health information at all
9. Why is it useful to check whether a health information source is current (recently updated), not just whether it seems credible?
Health understanding can change over time, so outdated information — even from a once-reliable source — may no longer be accurate
Information from any point in time is always equally accurate and useful
Currency of information has no real bearing on its reliability
Older health information is always more trustworthy than newer information
10. Why might a service that seems to genuinely help but is run by someone with relevant, verifiable qualifications be considered more reliable than an anonymous online source?
Verified qualifications and transparency provide some accountability and evidence of legitimate expertise
Anonymous sources are always exactly as reliable as sources with verifiable expertise
Qualifications and transparency have no bearing on how reliable a source is
Anonymity always indicates a more trustworthy, unbiased source
11. Why might critically evaluating information about sensitive topics (like sexual health or mental health) be especially important, compared to more low-stakes information?
Acting on inaccurate information in these areas could have a more significant impact on wellbeing or safety
The stakes involved in a topic have no bearing on how carefully information should be evaluated
Sensitive topics never actually carry any additional risk from misinformation
All types of information carry identical risk regardless of the topic
12. Why might it be helpful to cross-check a health claim across multiple independent, credible sources rather than relying on just one?
Agreement across multiple independent, credible sources adds confidence that a claim is well-supported, not just one source's opinion
A single source is always exactly as reliable as checking multiple sources
Cross-checking a claim provides no additional confidence in its accuracy
Multiple sources always just repeat identical misinformation with no added reliability
13. Why might a health service that clearly explains its evidence base (studies, professional guidelines) be more trustworthy than one that only offers personal testimonials?
A stated evidence base allows independent verification, while testimonials alone reflect individual experiences that may not generalise reliably
Personal testimonials are always exactly as reliable as a documented evidence base
An evidence base and personal testimonials provide identical levels of verifiable support
Explaining an evidence base has no bearing on how trustworthy a service actually is
14. Why might a young person specifically be targeted with health misinformation on social media, more so than through other channels?
Young people often spend significant time on platforms where algorithm-driven content and influencer marketing are common
Young people are never actually targeted by any form of health-related marketing or misinformation
Social media has no particular relevance to how health information reaches young people
All age groups encounter identical amounts of health misinformation through identical channels
15. Why might distinguishing between a genuinely helpful support service and one primarily designed to generate revenue require looking beyond its marketing and reviews?
Marketing and reviews can be crafted or selectively presented, so verifying genuine qualifications and evidence provides a more solid basis for trust
Marketing and reviews always provide a completely reliable, unbiased picture of a service's legitimacy
There is no meaningful difference between a genuinely helpful service and a revenue-focused one
Looking beyond marketing and reviews provides no additional useful information
16. Why might the wide availability of health information online be considered both a benefit and a risk for young people navigating their own wellbeing?
Access to information can empower informed decisions, but the same accessibility also increases exposure to misinformation without built-in evaluation skills
Online health information availability is either entirely beneficial or entirely risky, with no possible mix of both
Access to information has no real connection to either empowerment or risk
Misinformation risk exists completely independently of how easily information can be accessed
17. Why might learning to evaluate health information be considered a skill that extends well beyond adolescence, into adult life?
The need to critically assess health claims and services continues throughout life as new products, trends and misinformation constantly emerge
This skill is only ever relevant during the teenage years, with no ongoing value into adulthood
Evaluating health information has no genuine, lasting importance for older adults
Adults never actually encounter unreliable or biased health information of any kind
18. Why might a genuinely reliable service actively encourage a person to also seek other professional opinions, rather than positioning itself as the only trustworthy source?
Genuine care for someone's wellbeing is usually more important to a reliable service than protecting its own position as the sole authority
A truly reliable service should always insist it is the only source anyone should ever consult
Encouraging other opinions always indicates a service is unreliable or untrustworthy
Reliable services never have any interest in a person's broader access to support
19. Why might a health claim that seems to align perfectly with what you already want to believe be especially important to evaluate carefully, rather than less?
Confirmation bias can make it easier to accept a claim uncritically simply because it matches existing hopes or beliefs, regardless of its actual accuracy
Claims that align with existing beliefs are always automatically more accurate than others
Personal bias has no relevance to how carefully a health claim should be evaluated
It is never necessary to apply extra scrutiny to a claim that feels appealing or convenient
20. Why might a critical evaluation process for health information (checking source, currency, and commercial interest) need to be applied consistently, even to sources that seem broadly trustworthy?
Even generally reliable sources can occasionally publish outdated, biased or incorrect information, so consistent evaluation habits are more protective than selective ones
Generally trustworthy sources never need any form of ongoing critical evaluation
Applying a consistent evaluation process to all sources provides no additional protection
Sources that seem broadly trustworthy are always completely free from any bias or error
21. Understanding how to find and evaluate help, support and health information mainly helps you to:
Critically assess the credibility and motives behind health information and support services
Assume all health information found online is automatically accurate
Ignore whether a source has a commercial interest in its claims
Treat popularity as a reliable measure of a source's trustworthiness
Answer key (parent copy)
1. Trustworthy and backed by evidence or genuine expertise
2. A financial motive that could bias information
3. Who runs it and whether it is backed by qualified professionals
4. A real risk when searching for health information
5. A red flag about potential bias
6. A reliable source of help and support
7. Credible, current, and free from conflicting interest
8. Confidence in how something is stated has no bearing on whether it is actually accurate or evidence-based
9. Health understanding can change over time, so outdated information — even from a once-reliable source — may no longer be accurate
10. Verified qualifications and transparency provide some accountability and evidence of legitimate expertise
11. Acting on inaccurate information in these areas could have a more significant impact on wellbeing or safety
12. Agreement across multiple independent, credible sources adds confidence that a claim is well-supported, not just one source's opinion
13. A stated evidence base allows independent verification, while testimonials alone reflect individual experiences that may not generalise reliably
14. Young people often spend significant time on platforms where algorithm-driven content and influencer marketing are common
15. Marketing and reviews can be crafted or selectively presented, so verifying genuine qualifications and evidence provides a more solid basis for trust
16. Access to information can empower informed decisions, but the same accessibility also increases exposure to misinformation without built-in evaluation skills
17. The need to critically assess health claims and services continues throughout life as new products, trends and misinformation constantly emerge
18. Genuine care for someone's wellbeing is usually more important to a reliable service than protecting its own position as the sole authority
19. Confirmation bias can make it easier to accept a claim uncritically simply because it matches existing hopes or beliefs, regardless of its actual accuracy
20. Even generally reliable sources can occasionally publish outdated, biased or incorrect information, so consistent evaluation habits are more protective than selective ones
21. Critically assess the credibility and motives behind health information and support services