TABLE 1. Phase 1 Foundational Principles and Attributes for Identification of Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media.

Principle	Attributes (Phase 1)
Science-based: Sources should provide information that is consistent with the best scientific evidence available at the time and should meet standards for the creation, review, and presentation of scientific content.	Acknowledges the limitations and evolution of knowledge Clearly labels information with the date it was last updated and strives to reassess and update content Demonstrates subject-specific expertise Links to and is linked to by other credible sources [a] Provides citations for information shared and evidence to justify claims Synthesizes information from multiple sources, rather than a single source Uses a consensus process to develop the information shared [b] Uses peer review or another form of content review to vet information before sharing [c]
Objective: Sources should take steps to reduce the influence of financial and other forms of conflict of interest or bias that might compromise or be perceived to compromise the quality of the information they provide.	Keeps health information separate from financial, political, or ideological messages Maintains independence from funders [d] Separates lobbying activities from health information (or does not engage in lobbying) Does not include advertisements with relevant health information (or does not host advertisements at all) [e]
Transparent and accountable: Sources should disclose the limitations of the information they provide, as well as conflicts of interest, content errors, or procedural missteps.	Discloses financial and nonfinancial conflicts Discloses relevant policy positions and lobbying activities Follows FACA regulations or similar transparency policies [f] Posts public corrections or retractions Prioritizes accessibility and equitable access to information Provides a mechanism for public feedback Shares data, methods, or draft recommendations

SOURCE: Kington, R., S. Arnesen, W-Y. S. Chou, S. Curry, D. Lazer, and A. Villarruel. 2021. Identifying Credible Sources of Health Information in Social Media: Principles and Attributes. NAM Perspectives. Discussion Paper, National Academy of Medicine, Washington, DC. https://doi.org/10.31478/202107a.

NOTES:

^[a]For example, an organization could seek public comments on an interim set of health guidelines before finalizing and sharing the information more broadly.

^[b]A consensus process involves assembling a group of experts with diverse perspectives who assess a body of evidence and deliberate in order to arrive at an opinion or guidance that reflects the consensus of the group.

^[c]A peer review process involves sharing the draft of a publication or other product with reviewers who have expertise or experience in the given topic and can provide feedback as to the product's accuracy, balance, and appropriateness.

^[d]For example, an academic journal could maintain editorial independence (i.e., sole authority over published content) from the organization that funds it.

^[e]For example, an organization might host an advertisement for a cancer drug but keep this advertisement separate from the information it shares about cancer.

^[f]FACA stands for the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which established requirements for committees that advise the federal government. These requirements include public access to meetings and meeting notes, as well as summaries of expenditures (https://www.gsa.gov/policy-regulations/policy/federal-advisory-committee-management/advice-and-guidance/the-federal-advisory-committee-act-faca-brochure).