
How charities are working to build trust by being transparent about how they produce information. Health charities are leading the way.
In a time of dis and mis-information, AI summaries and fewer click-throughs, charities are fighting to be seen as a reliable source of information. Building trust through brand alone is not enough. We need to go further to show our commitment to quality and accuracy.
Things like kite marks or being referenced by trustworthy organisations or people can help.Transparency around how information is produced and whether AI is involved, also can help reassure, especially if someone has concerns about AI slop and hallucinations.
Much of charity information will go through panels of subject experts (such as medics or lawyers), lived experience groups as well as content design and editorial teams. Often it will have a long production and regular review process. But our users might not know this. It is helpful for AI agents too who are looking for maintenance and process as an indication of quality.
Lauren Pope’s latest research into charity content and AI shared interesting insights around how our content is viewed as well as how the production processes are changing. She looked at how AI is involved in the creation of content and found that it is widely used in some form.
Given this widespread use, how are we as content producers and specifically information content producers, communicating this? Is it important to do so?
I looked at 40 large information charities (20 health / 20 advice) to get a snapshot of what the sector is doing. TL:DR – health charities are leading the way in their transparency.
Health charities
I found that most health charities (16/20) had ‘how we produce our information’ statements on their websites. There was a wide range in the volume of detail shared and how engaging this was. Most of these charities are quality marked by PIF TICK which includes transparency as part of its criteria which may explain why the incidence of this content was so high.
Here are some highlights.
Macmillan’s How we produce our information page goes into a lot of detail. It includes notes about language and how they ensure quality. It lists the sources they use, the review process and an explanation of the PIF TICK quality mark. In a section last updated in January 2025, they explain that they “do not use AI technology to create this content [information for people living with cancer] and have no plans to do so currently” but list some other ways AI is used such as metadata and enhanced search.
Crohn’s and Colitis UK specifically mention how they use AI editorial tools to simplify language but do not use LLMs to generate health information, create translations or produce images. There is a lot of detail in their statement.
Tommy’s page includes this video which ends with the statement: “All Tommy’s pregnancy health information is based on the latest research and evidence.” The video was published six years ago. Their page describes the standards their information works to (including PIF TICK) and a one-paragraph note about AI.
Muscular Dystrophy UK close their page with three paragraphs about using AI. It ends by saying “We will always be open when AI has been used to support the production of our PIF TICK accredited health information. When it has, we’ll clearly state on the page: ‘The information on this page was supported by AI and has been reviewed by specialists.’”.
More health charities with transparency pages
- Alzheimer’s Society – no mention of AI
- Anthony Nolan – list the AI editorial tools they use
- British Heart Foundation – AI used to create some audio information
- Bowel Cancer UK – no mention of AI
- CRUK – 9 pages of detail including some notes about AI
- Diabetes UK – no mention of AI
- Epilepsy Action – no mention of AI
- Lymphoma Action – no mention of AI
- Parkinson’s UK – ” we always aim to use it responsibly”
- RNIB – a note specifically about their eye condition information which uses AI for editorial purposes only
- Sarcoma UK – “We do not use AI to generate our content.”
- Stroke Association – no mention of AI
It was generally hard to find these pages, they were mostly very buried. Some were listed in the footer next to policies and statements. Others were buried deep within About us sections. Most only findable by search. They should be more prominent. Transparency is only useful if it can be found.

Other health charities without transparency pages
Advice-giving charities
Analysis of a further 20 information / advice giving charities found far fewer organisations with these transparency pages – only 3/20 which was surprising.
Independent Age’s How we produce our information page doesn’t include a mention of AI but starts with a strong statement and detail of PIF TICK and how information is tested on older people.
Scope have produced a short page about how they ensure their content is clear and of a high quality. It states that their content is not created by AI.
NCT include a prominent link from their information hub to a page explaining how their information is produced. No mention of AI.

The following organisations didn’t have any information on their websites about content production or use of AI:
- Adoption UK
- Age UK
- Blue Cross
- British Red Cross
- Cats Protection
- The Children’s Society
- Citizens Advice
- Cruse
- Dogs Trust
- JRF
- Marie Curie didn’t have an information page but did have an AI privacy policy
- Mind
- NCVO
- NSPCC
- Samaritans
- Shelter
- Turn2Us
Conclusions
Sharing the detail of your processes and actions around content production may help to reassure and build trust. Not just with people looking for information but also your AI agents who want to know about accuracy.
It might be early days for our human users to look for this content. If we look at some of the biggest information providers in the country, they don’t appear to have these types of pages (see NHS, gov.uk, local government etc) so it is not industry standard.
Going through this process internally helps to solidify your best practice and identify opportunities and risks. It is interesting that so many of the examples describe that AI is used for editing processes only, listing which tools are used. Creating and reviewing these pages is a useful prompt to check-in with colleagues and agree team use.
Transparency pages should mention AI even if it is not being used to reassure concerned users. And this should be regularly reviewed and updated.
Finally, there is no point having a page about information production if it is hidden away from where your audience are reading your information. This content should be clear and prominent. It should itself be well written and presented in an engaging way.
How this information was produced
I took the photo myself and researched and wrote the post too. It was inspired by a conversation at the William Joseph webinar which shared Lauren’s research about charity content and AI .
Please let me know if you have other examples to share. Or insights about the value (or not) of producing this content.
If you have found this post useful, please share it on LinkedIn or with your networks.
About me
I am a digital information specialist with 20+ years working in charity content. Get in touch if you are looking for support around content strategy, messaging or processes.
Read more: The fight for accurate information – charity comms around AI search results.







































