Match the source to the claim
A broad institutional overview may support definitions and general pathways. More specific claims about outcomes, comparisons, or risk need evidence designed to answer that narrower question.
How we work
Editorial Policy
A transparent standard for educational content, sources, corrections, and clinical boundaries.
At a glance
The practical scope of this page.
| Evidence hierarchy | Prefer current public-health guidance, established professional organizations, systematic evidence, and primary institutional sources appropriate to the claim. |
|---|---|
| Claim discipline | Distinguish established guidance, uncertainty, editorial interpretation, and individual variation. |
| Clinical review | Do not imply named clinician review when it has not occurred. |
| Corrections | Prioritize safety and material accuracy; update the page and its review date when a correction changes meaning. |
| Commercial separation | Advertising, notification, affiliate, or sponsor relationships must not determine health claims or recommendations. |
Scope
Yourself publishes general education and self-reflection prompts. It does not publish diagnoses, individualized treatment plans, provider rankings, or claims that a home-grown check-in is a validated screening instrument.
Sources
Health claims are checked against current overviews from public-health bodies and established professional organizations. Every advice guide links to its source set. Source links are starting points, not a substitute for individualized evaluation.
Authorship and review
The current library is editorial content and has not received named clinician review. We state that limitation directly instead of using anonymous medical-review badges.
Updates and corrections
Guides display their latest source-check date. Material safety or accuracy corrections should be prioritized, documented, and reflected in the update date.
Safety
Content avoids method details for self-harm, directs imminent danger to local emergency help, and points people to verified crisis services by jurisdiction.
How a consequential claim is handled
Mental-health language can shape identity, fear, and care decisions. The review process should reflect that level of consequence.
Write uncertainty into the sentence
When evidence is mixed, context-dependent, or outside the page’s scope, the wording should say so instead of burying uncertainty in a source list.
Edit for foreseeable harm
Review whether a passage could encourage delayed urgent care, abrupt medication changes, forced disclosure, unsafe exposure, shame, or reliance on an unverified provider.
Check the connected system
A correction may affect metadata, FAQs, check-ins, internal links, structured data, update dates, and related guides. Fixing one sentence is not complete when the same claim appears elsewhere.
Inspect the connected editorial record
Every guide in the advice library shows its source set, review wording, educational scope, and update status in the visible page.
Safety pathways and jurisdiction limits are collected in the support resources and linked where a page discusses immediate risk.
To report a material error, use the contact page with the page address, disputed passage, and a reliable supporting source when available.
The publication check
Before a health page is treated as ready, editors should be able to answer each question with evidence visible in the page or its record.
- Is the intended reader and educational purpose clear?
- Are consequential claims supported by appropriate, current sources?
- Are diagnosis, treatment, emergency, and jurisdiction limits stated where relevant?
- Could wording create shame, false certainty, or pressure to disclose?
- Do links work, dates match, headings describe the content, and structured data reflect the visible page?
- Has any commercial relationship been disclosed without shaping the editorial conclusion?
Common questions
Are the guides medically reviewed?+
No named clinical review is currently claimed. Guides are source-checked editorial material and say so directly.
How are sources chosen?+
Editors prefer institutional and public-health sources that directly support the claim, then use more specialized evidence when needed and within scope.
How quickly are corrections made?+
Urgent safety or material accuracy issues should be prioritized. Timing depends on verification and operator capacity.
Can a commercial partner request an editorial change?+
A partner may report an error, but cannot determine the conclusion, suppress relevant limitations, or purchase a favorable health claim.