Claim & source review
Check whether a published claim matches its cited source, date, population, scope, and level of certainty. Flag anything broader than the evidence supports.
Source-cited · independent expert review remains incomplete · reviewers are credited only with permission
Review, correct, or build with us.
Values in Care should become more trustworthy by making uncertainty, disagreement, and review visible—not by pretending every question is settled. We welcome small, bounded contributions from people who know the evidence, the care setting, or the lived experience better than we do.
A bounded review model
Review one thing well. You do not need to endorse the project.
A reviewer can validate, correct, narrow, challenge, or leave a claim unresolved. Reviewing one item does not imply endorsement of other content, of Values in Care, of its creator, or of any organization named here.
Clinical & decision-support review
Assess whether prompts are balanced, clinically sensible, understandable, and appropriately bounded. Review is about safety and fidelity—not making individualized treatment recommendations.
Lived-experience & usability review
Test clarity, burden, navigation, missing perspectives, and whether the tools help people prepare for real conversations. No personal health details are required to participate.
Culture, worldview & ethics review
Review optional context only where you have relevant expertise. Tradition or identity should never be used as a proxy for an individual person's preferences.
Who can contribute
Expertise comes from more than one discipline.
- Patients, caregivers, advocates, and community members
- Primary-care and specialty clinicians, nurses, pharmacists, behavioral-health professionals, palliative-care clinicians, and other care-team members
- Shared decision-making, decision-science, health-communication, ethics, health-literacy, and patient-experience researchers
- Accessibility, disability, human-factors, design, and plain-language reviewers
- Chaplains, spiritual-care professionals, secular/humanist advisers, cultural reviewers, and tradition-specific scholars
- Health-system, quality, payer, public-health, and data professionals reviewing bounded workflows or evidence
Low-friction participation
The smallest useful contribution is enough.
Review should not require joining a committee. A precise correction or a few minutes of focused testing can materially improve the resource.
How review is handled
No forced consensus
If credible reviewers disagree, we narrow the language, document the uncertainty, or keep the item pending rather than manufacture certainty.
Credit is opt-in
Reviewers may be credited by name and role only with permission. A credit identifies the bounded work reviewed; it is not a blanket endorsement.
Send a review note
Tell us what you want to review, correct, test, or explore. Please do not include protected health information or other sensitive personal details.