I recently stumbled across a neat little article in USA Today about parenting myths. It included a quick quiz, and I invite you to click on the link to take the quiz and share your score here.
I got 9 out of 11 correct.
Never miss a local story.
As parents we’re naturally curious and hungry for information about the best things we can do for the health of our children. We’re also bombarded with advice, good and bad, but normally always well-intentioned.
With the tremendous amount of good information available on the internet there also comes a tremendous amount of bad information. The CDC has developed a quick reference, in response to the misinformation being promoted by the anti-vax movement, to help you evaluate what you’re being told:
First, consider the source of information.
· A good health Web site will display who is responsible for the site. Also, there will be a way to contact the information provider or Webmaster.
· Information should not be slanted in favor of a Web site's sponsor or source of funding. Health information should be accurate and unbiased.
Then, ask the following questions:
· Do scientific experts review the medical information before it is posted on the Web site? What are their credentials?
· Does the information display the date of last revision, and is it kept up to date?
· What is the scientific evidence for claims made? The original source of facts and figures should be shown. For example, the Web site should provide citations of medical articles or other sources of information. You should be able to distinguish facts from opinions. Also, facts are more reliable if they come from a published scientific study on humans rather than from unpublished accounts or from reports of a single person or of animal studies.
So, while we will always see varying trends in parenting and even more information become available to us through the years it’s a good idea to always try to consider the source for our information. Are we receiving it through well-intentioned grandparents, Hollywood celebrities, Playboy bunnies, pharmaceutical companies, health food companies, or independent experts?