As members of the Editorial Board of the Journal of Health Communication and the Nature Medicine Commission on Quality Health Information for All (Ratzan, Larson, et al., Citation2025 ), we strongly endorse the BMJ's recent call to retire the term "non-pharmaceutical interventions" in favor of the more balanced and affirmative "public health and social measures" (BMJ, Citation2025 ). This shift is not merely semantic; it marks a critical reorientation that better captures the scientific legitimacy, complexity, and societal value of these interventions. At the same time, we must also remember that all health interventions (whether pharmacological, behavioral, or systemic) are inherently social acts that occur within networks of communication, trust, norms, and institutional structures. Every medical act, including the prescription or uptake of pharmaceuticals, is embedded in social meaning with communication and interaction. From this broader perspective, one might envision a future taxonomy wherein all interventions are understood as various forms of socially mediated health measures. In any case, the move from a negative definition ("non-pharmaceutical") to a positive and inclusive one ("public health and social measures") posited in the BMJ is an essential and overdue corrective.
The BMJ editorial offers a timely impetus for needed change, but enduring transformation demands more. What is needed now is a sustained cultural, political, and intellectual effort. For over thirty years, our journal has dedicated itself to this endeavor. We understand the responsibility of rising above technical terminology that may demonstrate expertise but fails to communicate —literally, to create common ground—with those who most need our knowledge and skills.
The language of health communication must be designed with "health literacy" in mind. Quality health communication consistently integrates both the science and the art of conveying information in ways that enable everyone to understand what they should know and do to maintain or improve their health. As the COVID-19 pandemic underscored, public health and social measures are not just "non-pharmaceutical", they are prescriptive, vital, and integral to health outcomes.
Words do far more than describe: they define. They frame problems, determine visibility, assign value, and create legitimacy. In public health, language carries profound institutional, political, and moral weight. To describe an action as a "non-pharmaceutical intervention" is not neutral: it subordinates the breadth of public health to pharmacological measures, even when the former may be more appropriate, accessible, or equitable. Effective responses require combinations of interventions beyond the strictly medical, yet terminology can obscure this complexity.
At the Journal of Health Communication: International Perspectives we have consistently emphasized the importance of evidence-based messaging. Yet, we must also admit that we have not always insisted forcefully enough on the fact that the conceptual framing of interventions is part of that evidence base. How we name and narrate public health strategies profoundly affects how they are received, perceived, and enacted. Language does more than merely transmit findings; it creates meaning, parameters of legitimacy, and pathways to action.
This insight has deep roots. In classical antiquity, Aristotle, particularly in his Topics and Posterior Analytics, emphasized that a "definition" is foundational to reasoning. To define a term was not merely to label it, but to situate it in a hierarchy of knowledge, making its role intelligible within a coherent whole (Rubinelli, Citation2009 ). The Stoics, too, treated the precise articulation of terms as central to ethical and logical inquiry (Sellars, Citation2014 ). This tradition matured through medieval scholars such as Avicenna, Thomas Aquinas, and Duns Scotus, who elevated linguistic clarity as a moral imperative (Aquinas, Citation1968 ).
This commitment continued through the logica vetus and logica nova manuals, which trained scholars to detect ambiguities, define categories, and avoid fallacies. They understood that misnaming distorts reasoning, and that such errors can have profound societal consequences. In today's climate of information overload, politicized science, and false and misleading information, their insights are more urgent than ever. To name something correctly respects its reality and equips societies to respond wisely
Nowhere is the power of language more evident than in today's digital and political climate. We face a crisis of suboptimal health information, institutional mistrust, and fractured discourse. Conspiracy theories and ideological distortions erode public trust and compromise public health efforts. In this context, language is both a risk and a responsibility. Understanding how meaning is constructed, contested, and interpreted is crucial for addressing health inequities, promoting health literacy, and countering manipulation.
Linguistic and rhetorical analysis allow us to detect framing biases, uncover hierarchies, and foster clarity and inclusiveness. Public health must embrace not only biological and social sciences but also the full power of communication science, linguistics, and discourse theory. In short, effective health communication is fundamental to attaining health and well-being.
The shift from "non-pharmaceutical interventions" to "public health and social measures" is foundational, not cosmetic. It acknowledges these interventions as scientifically rigorous, socially embedded, and morally significant. They are not mere placeholders for medicine; in a broader, more humane sense, they are medicine. They foster transparency, strengthen public trust, and invite interdisciplinary collaboration. They envision a health paradigm attentive to pathogens and pharmacology, housing, education, labor, community, and collective well-being.
Our journal remains committed to uniting good science with good language. We expect our authors, reviewers, and readers to share in this responsibility. As we affirmed in our recent 30th Anniversary issue, our field must not remain static in the face of declining trust in science and institutions. Instead, it must take "an active and unapologetic stance, maintaining the highest ethics while driving innovation" (Ratzan, Citation2025 ). That leadership begins with language—far from a mere editorial preference, it is an intellectual and ethical imperative.
Moreover, this conversation about naming is part of a broader and evolving discourse in medicine. For example, ongoing debates about whether conditions such as ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) and low-risk prostate abnormalities should retain the "cancer" label reveal how terminology can affect perceptions, patient anxiety, treatment decisions, and healthcare policy (Ma et al., Citation2023 ; Ratzan, Citation2013 ). Similarly, efforts to rename stigmatizing diseases—such as the shift from "monkeypox"to "mpox"—demonstrate the ethical necessity of precision and care in health terminology. So, while the present editorial focuses on public health and social measures, we see an opportunity for future work that explores these broader naming issues in medical contexts, contributing to a deeper and more unified understanding of language across all domains of health communication.
Much of what we know in health and medicine fails to reach practical application, a gap exacerbated by limited health literacy, what the US Institute of Medicine (IOM) called a "silent epidemic" over two decades ago (IOM, Citation2004 ). Jargon, poorly chosen labels, and inaccessible language widen the divide between what people must understand and what they can actually do to care for their health. Preparing health-literate individuals and communities remains a widely recognized goal of public health (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Citationn.d. ). Language, therefore, must be seen not only as an academic concern but as a critical determinant of health itself. Decades of health literacy research inform our need to communicate consistently with clear, plain language whose meaning is understood by all. As always, the devil will lie in the details.
In conclusion, the BMJ's decision to update terminology is a welcome step. But it must not be the final or only one. Language shapes legitimacy. The way we name and describe public health measures determines how they are funded, how they are put into practice, and how they are remembered. Let us treat the language of public health not as an afterthought, but as one of its most powerful tools for understanding, for accountability, and for action.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
