Sexual Health Editorial Policy
Openlywell publishes people-first sexual-health education. Topics are selected because they answer genuine adult questions, improve understanding or help readers make informed decisions. Search demand can influence priority, but it does not determine medical conclusions or justify thin duplicate pages.
Editorial quality in sexual health depends on clarity and restraint. A page should answer the reader’s question directly while acknowledging uncertainty, individual variation and the limits of general online information. Headlines should describe the topic accurately rather than exaggerating fear or promising a cure.
Health-related pages should use authoritative or specialist sources appropriate to the claim. Openlywell should favour public-health agencies, national health services, professional organisations and high-quality clinical evidence. Statistics need a date and source and should not be used only to make a topic sound alarming.
People-first topic selection
Search terms can reveal what adults are asking, but the content should be organised around useful concepts and user journeys. Openlywell should not create dozens of near-identical pages simply because keyword variants exist.
Source standards
Medical claims should be supported by sources with relevant expertise. When recommendations differ by country, the page should name that variation rather than silently combining incompatible guidelines.
Evidence and uncertainty
Writers should distinguish established facts, guideline recommendations, common clinical practice and areas of uncertainty. A confident tone must not be mistaken for certainty when evidence is limited.
Language standards
Content should avoid STI stigma, body shame, gender assumptions and sexual-performance pressure. Terms such as “clean” for STI status or “normal” as a moral judgement should not be used.
AI-assisted workflows
If AI tools are used for ideation, drafting or formatting, a human editor remains responsible for factual accuracy, originality, tone and source verification. AI is not a medical reviewer.
Updates and corrections
Pages should show meaningful update dates. Substantive corrections that affect health meaning should be documented, and guidance changes should trigger a review rather than leaving stale medical advice online.
Practical context and next steps
This editorial policy page is part of Openlywell’s trust framework. Readers should be able to understand not only the information itself but also how it is created, reviewed and corrected. The sections on people-first topic selection and source standards make the standard visible rather than asking users to trust a health website simply because it looks professional.
The policy should be implemented in the product, not left as aspirational copy. CMS fields, permissions, review dates and visible author/reviewer profiles should reflect what this page promises. If the operational process changes, the published policy should be updated so the website and the real workflow remain consistent.
Transparency is especially important for sexual-health information because users may be making private decisions about testing, contraception, symptoms or relationships. Clear limits reduce the chance that a reader mistakes general education for personalised care. Related pages such as Medical Review Policy, Corrections Policy, About Openlywell should use the same trust standard.
Questions such as “Does SEO decide what Openlywell says medically?” and “Can writers use personal experience?” belong in a visible FAQ because readers should not have to infer how Openlywell works. Policy language should stay plain, specific and verifiable rather than making broad claims such as “always accurate,” “completely confidential” or “medically approved” when those claims cannot be demonstrated.
A decision checklist for this topic
Before acting on anything you read here, run through this short check.
Before acting on information about editorial policy, make a short personal checklist. What exactly are you trying to prevent, understand or improve? Is the issue new or longstanding? Are there symptoms, pain, bleeding, pregnancy possibility, recent exposures, medicines or health conditions that change the decision? Which parts of the page — especially People-first topic selection, Source standards, Evidence and uncertainty — apply directly to you, and which are only background information? This approach reduces the chance of taking one sentence out of context or assuming that a common possibility is automatically your diagnosis.
If you are still uncertain after reading, use the questions on this page to decide the next step rather than continuing to search indefinitely. Common starting questions include: Does SEO decide what Openlywell says medically?; Can writers use personal experience?; Can Openlywell recommend products?. Write down the answer you already know and what remains unknown. Then use Medical Review Policy, Corrections Policy, About Openlywell or an appropriate healthcare professional to fill the gap. Seeking care is especially important when the missing information depends on examination, a laboratory test, prescription treatment, pregnancy-specific advice or urgent timing.
When to get professional or urgent help
•Urgent personal medical questions are outside the editorial function and should be directed to appropriate care.
Safety note: If symptoms are severe, rapidly worsening or described above as urgent, use the appropriate local emergency or same-day healthcare service rather than waiting for an online answer.
Questions & Clear Answers
No. SEO helps people discover useful pages; evidence and clinical review determine health claims.
References & Sources
Openlywell articles are compiled with reference to published guidance from international public-health authorities, professional colleges and peer-reviewed literature.
- [1]WHO — Defining sexual health
- [2]WHO — Sexually transmitted infections fact sheet (10 Sep 2025)