By Jordan Baker, founder of Fair Public Relations and former UK national journalist
A patient describes a life-changing experience.
A clinic notices more people asking about a treatment.
A healthcare founder is excited about new research.
Each could offer a worthwhile subject for a journalist — but none, by itself, proves a treatment works, establishes a population trend or gives a business permission to disclose medical information.
Healthcare publicity deserves a more careful approach than a promotional announcement about an ordinary product. Readers may use medical stories to form opinions about their own health, while patients have a reasonable expectation that their personal circumstances will be respected.
A useful PR campaign starts with the evidence, the expertise and the person affected — not the headline a company wishes it could secure.
As a former national journalist, I would look for the public-interest question first:
what is new
who is affected
what is independently verifiable
what would a qualified person say about the limits of the evidence
Here is how a healthcare business can work through those questions before approaching the press.
Why healthcare stories need a higher standard of care
Consider two hypothetical approaches.
The first says: “Clinic's revolutionary treatment transforms patients' lives.”
The second offers a properly qualified specialist to explain what a recently published study actually found, who participated and what questions remain unanswered.
The latter is less dramatic but generally gives a journalist something more useful.
Health coverage can affect treatment expectations, patient confidence and decisions about seeking care.
Unsupported percentages, selective testimonials and claims of certainty can mislead people even when the person sharing them believes they are being truthful.
A story also may expose an individual's condition, age, family situation or medical history long after an interview takes place.
Responsible PR does not mean withholding genuine advances or avoiding human stories.
It means matching the strength of the claim to the strength of the supporting evidence. Independent editorial coverage, company advertising, professional communications and regulated promotional materials also have different rules and responsibilities.
A PR agency cannot replace a qualified clinician, researcher, privacy adviser or legal reviewer.
What genuinely interests healthcare journalists?
A journalist usually needs a story of value to readers, not a description of everything a company offers. That could mean an important piece of research, a practical explanation of a newly published public-health issue, a significant change in local provision, or a patient's genuinely newsworthy experience shared with appropriate permission.
The source can be more important than the brand. If a qualified expert can explain a complicated development in plain English, their contribution may help an entire article even where their clinic is not the main subject.
Alternatively, an organisation may have a substantive business announcement: a verified service expansion that affects local capacity, for example, rather than a routine website redesign described as a breakthrough.
A weak hypothetical pitch might read: “Leading clinic reveals game-changing new approach.”
It offers no evidence, no context and no reason why the reader should care.
A more useful opening would identify the independently established problem and offer an appropriately qualified spokesperson to explain its implications. The journalist remains free to accept, reject or challenge the material.
Research, observational data and individual experience are not interchangeable
A personal account describes what one person experienced.
An internal spreadsheet may describe operational activity at one organisation.
A customer survey measures responses from the people who answered it. A research paper reports findings from a particular methodology and population.
They do not all support the same conclusion.
For example, imagine a hypothetical health clinic received 80 enquiries last month and 100 this month. That is a 25% increase in enquiries to that clinic. It does not show a 25% rise in prevalence of a condition nationally. Changes in advertising, appointment availability, seasonality and reporting could explain some or all of the difference. The business might accurately report its own count, if there is a lawful reason to publish it, but the wider conclusion would require independent evidence.
Equally, a study's headline result cannot be separated from its design.
Was it randomised or observational?
How many people participated?
Were outcomes clinically meaningful?
Was the comparator appropriate?
Was the research independently reviewed?
Did the authors identify limitations or conflicts?
Is this finding consistent with other reliable work?
Those questions matter more than whether a percentage looks impressive in a press release.
A practical evidence hierarchy for PR is not about declaring one source universally superior. It is about knowing what each source can actually establish.
Patient feedback can illuminate lived experience.
Audited service records can accurately describe activity within a particular organisation.
Well-designed clinical research may support a carefully defined conclusion about outcomes. None should be made to answer questions it was never designed to address.
Can patient experiences become media stories?
Yes, sometimes. An individual's account can make a difficult subject understandable, reveal a practical barrier to care or show how a health issue affects daily life. But a healthcare business must not assume that a patient's willingness to speak during a consultation means they have agreed to public disclosure.
Start by asking whether the story is genuinely theirs to tell and whether the person can make an informed, voluntary decision about taking part.
They should understand which details might be disclosed, the possible involvement of photographs or recordings, where material may be published and the limits of controlling its future circulation.
A patient should not feel that treatment, access to services or the relationship with their clinician depends on taking part.
Consent and authorisation can have different legal meanings, especially where identifiable health information is involved.
In the UK, relevant data protection law, confidentiality duties and professional requirements may apply.
In the US, HIPAA may apply to covered entities and business associates in relevant circumstances, with specific authorisation rules; not every health-related business has identical obligations.
Get advice suited to the actual organisation and use before disclosing information.
Even appropriate permission does not make an outcome claim scientifically valid. A patient may truly describe feeling better after a service, while the clinic still cannot fairly conclude that the intervention caused the improvement.
Removing the name is not necessarily anonymisation
A draft story about a “42-year-old teacher with a rare condition in a small town” can be identifiable without printing a name.
A recognisable photograph, treatment date, unusual occupation, family relationship or local detail may make re-identification straightforward. Replacing a name with initials is ordinarily better described as pseudonymisation than as proof that data is anonymous.
Before using material, review combinations of facts and the potential audience.
Ask whether the story can be told with fewer details, whether the individual must be identifiable at all and whether the entire account is appropriate to share.
The UK's Information Commissioner's Office offers guidance on effective anonymisation, including the risk that people can be identified from combined data. The correct assessment depends on context.
Sometimes the best editorial decision is not to publish the patient example. A qualified specialist can instead explain a publicly documented trend or published study without placing an individual's private history in the news.
When testimonials become treatment claims
A testimonial describes someone's account, but its surrounding presentation can imply a stronger statement.
“I felt supported during my appointments” is different from “this treatment cures chronic pain”; a before-and-after photograph beside an extraordinary result may suggest the result is typical even when the text doesn't say so.
A company should review the overall impression created by images, captions, headlines and selective stories.
In the United States, the Federal Trade Commission's Health Products Compliance Guidance stresses substantiation of express and implied health claims and explains why anecdotal experiences do not substitute for reliable scientific evidence.
In the UK, relevant advertising standards also scrutinise treatment claims and testimonials. Exact requirements depend on the product, professional context and kind of communication.
A story does not become supportable merely because someone gave a genuine interview. Nor does the existence of a published news article mean a clinic is free to reproduce every claim as advertising.
Separate independent reporting from a business's own promotional materials and obtain a suitable review before reusing sensitive or regulated claims.
How should a specialist comment on a new medical study?
The strongest contribution often begins with restraint.
A spokesperson should read the study or the most reliable available source, establish the question the researchers asked, consider the methods and explain what the results can and cannot mean. If a preliminary study involved one population, avoid casually applying its conclusions to everyone.
Funding and conflicts of interest deserve scrutiny; so do absolute versus relative changes, the size of the effect and the possibility of confounding.
An expert can make an important contribution simply by explaining why a sensational interpretation goes too far. Journalists value clarity, especially when headlines circulating online exceed what the underlying research demonstrates.
A fictional example: a small observational paper reports an association between a habit and an outcome.
A cautious commentator might say, “The finding is worth investigating, but it doesn't establish that changing this habit causes the outcome to change.” That is more useful than presenting the association as a proven treatment recommendation.
The spokesperson must also be appropriate.
A registered professional might be qualified to explain their clinical specialism but not every aspect of epidemiology, regulation or another clinical field.
A founder's commercial experience does not automatically confer medical qualifications.
What about a clinic's own operational information?
Everyday service data can provide useful context if it is accurate, appropriately aggregated and lawfully handled.
A service might be able to explain changes in appointment demand or common administrative questions.
The crucial step is distinguishing what the data directly measures from what someone wants the headline to say.
Suppose a hypothetical organisation records that seven of 11 people who attended an optional webinar asked about the same issue. “Seven of 11 attendees asked about X” is a description of that small, self-selected group. “Most UK patients now worry about X” is a much wider claim that these records cannot justify.
Keep a short methodology note: the time period, what was counted, exclusions, changes in collection and known limitations. Avoid presenting commercially selected customers as a representative scientific sample. Where the story needs national or clinical context, use appropriate independently published research instead.
Turning legitimate evidence into a journalist-friendly pitch
Start with the reader's concern, not with the name of the clinic. Make the strongest accurate point early and identify the source that supports it. Offer the expert's qualifications, the specific question they can answer and a practical way to reach them. Include caveats that materially affect interpretation.
For example, a clearly fictional pitch could read:
Subject: New research on [issue] — qualified specialist available to explain the limits
Hello [journalist],
I saw your recent reporting on [subject]. A newly published study from [verified institution] examines [precise question]. One point likely to matter to readers is [accurate, supported finding], although the researchers caution that [important limitation].
[Expert name], [verified role and specialism], can explain what the result means for [relevant audience], what it does not establish and which questions remain unanswered. They can provide a short written comment or speak by phone today if useful.
I can send the study and full credentials.
Kind regards,
[Contact]
A real version must replace every placeholder with verifiable information and reflect the journalist's actual work. Never send the fictional example as a claimed live study.
Four healthcare PR mistakes worth avoiding
Exaggerating certainty. Words such as “proven”, “cure” and “breakthrough” require careful justification. A better approach is to state exactly what was measured and acknowledge important limitations.
Treating an individual as a statistic. An emotionally compelling patient experience doesn't prove a treatment works in a general population. Use it as a person's account only where it is appropriate and permissible.
Quoting the wrong expert. A polished spokesperson cannot replace real qualifications and relevant experience. Establish whether the person can answer the precise question the journalist is asking.
Confusing publicity with editorial endorsement. Coverage is independently decided; a publication that quotes an expert has not necessarily endorsed the expert's employer, the clinic's treatments or every claim made by the business.
These are not reasons to avoid healthcare PR. They are reasons to build a campaign around genuinely useful information rather than claim-making shortcuts.
A pre-pitch approval checklist
Before material leaves the business, establish:
Who is the intended reader?
What is the exact claim?
Which source proves it?
Does the evidence relate to the actual product or service?
Are study limitations included?
Is the expert qualified for this specific comment?
Are permissions and confidentiality requirements properly addressed?
Have affected individuals been treated fairly?
Can a reporter access the original evidence?
Is the proposed headline stronger than the material warrants?
Record who reviewed the draft and what was changed. If an important claim cannot be verified, remove it or postpone the pitch. If a story depends on disclosing identifiable patient details, obtain the appropriate professional guidance before deciding whether it should proceed.
What if the business has no patient story or original research?
That does not mean there are no potential media opportunities.
Qualified experts can help reporters explain relevant independently published developments, practical healthcare questions and the distinction between a new finding and established knowledge.
A healthcare organisation may also have genuine company news or a service development that affects its community.
The better route depends on the available expertise and subject.
Expert Commentary PR is a focused service for suitably qualified specialists who can contribute useful journalist commentary.
Standard PR is broader account-managed PR for suitable companies, founders, services and genuine business stories.
Neither service is a substitute for clinical, legal or regulatory review, and neither can guarantee publication.
Healthcare evidence and approval worksheet
Use this model before a real pitch. Each example below is hypothetical and does not authorise publishing personal health information.
| Proposed claim | What the source actually shows | Main limitation | Who should check it | Editorial decision |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| "Demand is rising across the country" | Appointments increased at one clinic | Not nationally representative | Data owner and qualified analyst | Rewrite as a qualified local observation or use independent statistics |
| "Treatment cured a patient" | One person reports improvement | Cannot establish causation or typical outcome | Qualified clinical and compliance reviewers | Do not pitch as proven efficacy |
| "Patients prefer this option" | Small opt-in questionnaire | Self-selection and sample uncertainty | Research lead | Describe the measured respondents, not all patients |
| "Research identifies an association" | Published observational study | Association is not proof of causation | Relevant specialist | Describe the actual finding and its caveats |
| "Patient tells their own story" | Identifiable personal experience | Permission, privacy and professional duties | Privacy/confidentiality lead | Proceed only if sharing is appropriate and properly authorised |
Frequently asked questions
Can healthcare businesses share patient success stories with journalists?
A real patient's experience can be appropriate for a story, but a clinic should first establish whether sharing any health information is lawful, whether appropriate authorisation or consent is required, whether professional confidentiality duties apply and whether the person can make a free, informed choice. It should also consider how publication may affect them in the future. Removing a name does not necessarily eliminate identification risk. A patient's true experience must not be presented as proof of a general treatment effect. Where the privacy or scientific implications cannot be managed responsibly, a qualified expert can often explain the wider issue without an individual case history.
Can patient testimonials demonstrate that a treatment works?
Not on their own. Testimonials are accounts of individual experience, and people can experience changes for many reasons unrelated to an intervention. A clinic advertising a health benefit may need strong, relevant scientific substantiation for the express or implied claim. Photos, selective cases and enthusiastic quotations can convey claims even when the headline is carefully phrased. Review the whole presentation and the rules applying to the particular claim and market. Independent journalism, organisational advertising and professional communications are not identical categories, but accuracy remains important across all of them.
Must a medical expert have published original research to comment in the media?
No. A qualified and experienced professional may be able to explain reliable published work, clarify terminology or describe appropriately bounded professional practice without conducting the study themselves. They must understand the evidence, explain uncertainty and stay within their own competence. A journalist may also want an independent researcher or another qualified voice, particularly where the expert has a commercial interest in a product or service being discussed. The relevant question is whether the spokesperson can genuinely help explain that particular story, not whether their biography sounds impressive.
Should a healthcare business choose Expert Commentary PR or Standard PR?
The focused Expert Commentary PR route is more appropriate where a verified specialist can contribute accurate, timely commentary to topics journalists are already covering. Standard PR is the broader option for suitable business news, founder visibility, service-led stories and other genuine earned-media opportunities. A business may have both kinds of potential, but the scopes, workloads and fees are different. Fair PR's UK prices are £397 per month for focused Expert Commentary PR and £797 for Standard PR; corresponding US prices are $497 and $997. Both start with a three-month initial commitment, subject to the agreed terms. Coverage remains independently decided by journalists.
Healthcare PR should build trust, not stretch the evidence
Fair PR helps suitable healthcare businesses and qualified specialists turn real expertise, reliable information and genuinely useful stories into relevant earned-media opportunities. We don't promise a headline, and we don't turn anecdotes into unsupported medical claims.
Explore Health & Medical PR, learn about Expert Commentary PR, or contact us to discuss your story.
About the author
Jordan Baker is the founder of Fair Public Relations, a journalist-led boutique PR agency supporting founders, businesses and qualified specialists across the UK and US. Jordan is a former UK national journalist and approaches media strategy from the perspective of what a publication can genuinely use.
View Jordan Baker’s media expert profile
