An argumentation theory-based assessment tool for evaluating disinformation in health-related claims.

Objective: This study leverages argumentation theory to combat the growing threat of health disinformation by enhancing public competency in evaluating health-related information.

Methods: We systematically analyzed common persuasive tactics used in health disinformation, categorizing them into thematic groups linked to specific argument types. Based on these analyses, we developed critical questions to test the validity and strength of these arguments, resulting in an assessment tool.

Results: The assessment tool, formatted as a flowchart, guides users through targeted critical questions to assess the credibility of health information. It addresses tactics like data misuse, logical fallacies, and emotional manipulation, effectively improving users' ability to identify and resist misleading health claims.

Conclusion: Utilizing argumentation theory offers a structured framework to dissect and counteract persuasive disinformation techniques, thereby boosting public health literacy and empowering informed health decisions. The assessment tool serves as both an immediate practical tool and a long-term educational resource for building cognitive resilience.

Practice implications: Our findings suggest that health institutions should regularly conduct workshops to strengthen public argumentation skills. Accessible online resources and the integration of argumentation theory into educational curricula are recommended to foster critical thinking and discernment of health information, promoting a more informed and engaged public.