Clinical and Health Education Content Review Policy

Effective Date: January 1, 2026

1. Purpose

The Society of Individualized Medicine & Therapies (SOIMT) is committed to providing accurate, evidence-informed, understandable, and trustworthy health information to patients, caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers, policymakers, and the public.

The purpose of this policy is to establish a standardized review process for all clinical and health-related educational content produced or published by SOIMT to ensure that it:

  • Is scientifically accurate and evidence-informed.

  • Is understandable to its intended audience.

  • Clearly distinguishes educational information from medical advice.

  • Reflects current knowledge and recognized standards of care when applicable.

  • Is reviewed by qualified subject matter experts prior to publication.

2. Scope

This policy applies to all clinical, scientific, and health-related educational content developed, published, sponsored, or distributed by SOIMT, including:

  • Website articles

  • Patient education materials

  • Clinical guidance documents

  • White papers

  • Educational brochures

  • Infographics

  • Videos and webinars

  • Podcasts

  • Continuing education materials

  • Conference presentations produced by SOIMT

  • Social media posts containing clinical or health information

  • Newsletters and email communications

  • Digital learning resources

  • Journal summaries intended for general audiences

This policy does not govern peer-reviewed scientific manuscripts submitted to the SIMT Journal, which are subject to the Journal's Editorial Review Policy.

3. Guiding Principles

SOIMT educational content shall be:

  • Accurate

  • Evidence-informed

  • Transparent

  • Inclusive

  • Respectful

  • Accessible

  • Objective

  • Free from misleading claims

  • Appropriate for the intended audience

Educational materials should support informed decision-making without promoting specific treatments, products, or commercial interests unless appropriately disclosed.

4. Plain Language Standards

Educational content intended for patients, caregivers, or the general public shall be written in plain language.

Whenever practical, materials should:

  • Use common, everyday words instead of unnecessary medical jargon.

  • Define technical terms when their use is necessary.

  • Organize information with clear headings and logical progression.

  • Use short sentences and concise paragraphs.

  • Present actionable information in an easy-to-follow format.

  • Explain benefits, risks, and uncertainties in balanced language.

  • Be written at an approximate sixth- to eighth-grade reading level, unless a higher level is appropriate for the intended audience.

Materials developed specifically for healthcare professionals may include technical terminology appropriate to the audience.

5. Evidence Standards

Clinical and health-related educational content shall be based on credible, current, and appropriately cited evidence.

Preferred sources include:

  • Peer-reviewed scientific literature

  • Systematic reviews and meta-analyses

  • Evidence-based clinical practice guidelines

  • Consensus statements from recognized professional organizations

  • Government health agencies

  • Academic institutions

  • Reputable public health organizations

When evidence is limited, emerging, or evolving, the content shall clearly communicate the level of certainty and acknowledge existing limitations.

Opinion or expert commentary shall be clearly identified as such.

6. Medical and Scientific Review

Before publication, all clinical or health-related educational content shall be reviewed by at least one appropriately qualified medical or scientific reviewer.

Appropriate reviewers may include:

  • Licensed physicians

  • Doctoral-level scientists

  • Advanced practice clinicians

  • Pharmacists

  • Allied health professionals

  • Researchers with demonstrated expertise in the relevant subject area

Reviewers shall possess education, training, and experience appropriate to the topic being evaluated.

Reviewers are responsible for assessing:

  • Scientific accuracy

  • Clinical relevance

  • Balance and objectivity

  • Consistency with current evidence

  • Appropriate citations

  • Clarity for the intended audience

  • Appropriate use of medical terminology

  • Identification of unsupported or misleading statements

7. Editorial Review Process

All educational content shall complete the following review process before publication:

Step 1 – Content Development

The author prepares content using credible scientific sources and follows SOIMT editorial and style guidelines.

Step 2 – Editorial Review

Editorial staff review the content for:

  • Organization

  • Grammar

  • Plain language

  • Readability

  • Accessibility

  • Brand consistency

Step 3 – Medical or Scientific Review

A qualified reviewer evaluates the content for:

  • Scientific accuracy

  • Clinical appropriateness

  • Evidence support

  • Balance

  • Currency of information

Revisions may be requested before approval.

Step 4 – Final Editorial Approval

The designated editor confirms that all required reviews have been completed before publication.

8. Medical Advice Disclaimer

All public-facing educational content shall clearly state that it is intended for educational purposes only.

The following disclaimer, or substantially similar language, shall accompany clinical educational materials:

  • Educational Disclaimer: This information is provided for educational purposes only and is not intended to diagnose, treat, cure, or prevent any disease. It should not be considered medical advice or a substitute for consultation with a qualified healthcare professional. Individuals should consult their healthcare provider regarding questions about their health or medical condition.

Scientific publication records may be retained permanently to preserve the scholarly record.

9. Conflict of Interest Disclosure

Authors and reviewers shall disclose any financial, professional, or personal relationships that could influence the content.

Relevant disclosures shall be documented before publication.

Where appropriate, disclosures shall be published alongside the educational material.

10. Accessibility

SOIMT is committed to making educational content accessible to diverse audiences.

Whenever feasible, educational materials should:

  • Use accessible formatting.

  • Include descriptive alternative text for images.

  • Maintain sufficient color contrast.

  • Use captions or transcripts for multimedia.

  • Follow recognized web accessibility standards, including the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).

11. Periodic Review

Clinical educational materials shall be reviewed periodically to ensure continued accuracy.

As a general guideline:

  • High-priority clinical topics should be reviewed at least annually.

  • Other educational materials should be reviewed at least every three years.

  • Materials shall be reviewed sooner if significant new evidence, guideline updates, or safety information becomes available.

Outdated materials shall be revised, archived, or removed as appropriate.

12. Corrections

If a factual error is identified after publication, SIMT shall promptly evaluate the concern.

When warranted, the Society may:

  • Correct the content.

  • Add clarifying language.

  • Publish an update notice.

  • Remove content that is materially inaccurate or potentially harmful.

Substantive corrections should include the date of revision.

13. Recordkeeping

SOIMT shall maintain records of:

  • Original drafts

  • Reviewer comments

  • Approval dates

  • Reviewer identities

  • Major revisions

  • Publication dates

  • Subsequent updates

Documentation shall be retained in accordance with the Society's Records Retention Policy.

14. Responsibilities

Authors

Authors are responsible for:

  • Preparing accurate, evidence-informed content.

  • Citing credible sources.

  • Writing for the intended audience.

  • Responding to reviewer feedback.

Medical and Scientific Reviewers

Reviewers are responsible for:

  • Verifying scientific accuracy.

  • Identifying unsupported claims.

  • Confirming appropriate evidence.

  • Recommending revisions when necessary.

Editors

Editors are responsible for:

  • Managing the review workflow.

  • Ensuring compliance with this policy.

  • Confirming required approvals before publication.

15. Policy Review

This policy shall be reviewed by the Board of Directors or its designated committee at least every two years, or sooner if changes in scientific publishing standards, health communication practices, or applicable laws warrant revision.