Creating Health and Wellness Content People Actually Use
Research Report by CARAVAN Wellness
Health and wellness content has never been easier to find. Employees, members, and audiences can reach articles, videos, and full programs on almost any topic, often through platforms they already use every day. By 2025, an estimated 85% of workers had access to at least one employer-sponsored wellness program, up from 78% just three years earlier, putting workplace wellbeing support close to universal coverage.
Yet access has not translated into use. Across the industry, only about one-third of employees with available health and wellness programs actually participate, and most US programs see utilization below 50%. A long-running RAND Corporation analysis for the US Department of Labor found participation typically ranges from just 20% to 40%, depending on program size and design. The content exists. People are not consistently using it.
This is the defining challenge for organizations publishing health and wellness education today. Making material available is the easy part. The harder problem is whether anyone engages with it, retains it, and acts on it. The evidence points to a clear answer: engagement is determined far less by how much content an organization produces than by how well that content fits into the realities of people’s lives.
Where Content Falls Short
Most health and wellness content is built to be accurate and informative. That matters. But accuracy alone does not drive engagement, and a large body of research shows where well-intentioned content loses its audience.
It is too hard to read. The average US adult reads at roughly an eighth- to ninth-grade level, while most patient education materials are written at or above a tenth-grade level, according to data compiled by the American Academy of Family Physicians and the National Center for Education Statistics. The mismatch is severe: the US Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics has reported that 54% of Americans between 16 and 74 read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level, and the National Library of Medicine notes that roughly nine in ten adults struggle with some aspect of health literacy, including people with otherwise strong literacy skills. An estimated 80 million Americans have limited health literacy.
Health authorities agree on the standard, but real-world materials rarely meet it. The Joint Commission recommends that patient education materials be written at or below a fifth-grade reading level, and the NIH and American Medical Association recommend a fourth- to sixth-grade range. Multiple readability analyses published in peer-reviewed journals find that real-world materials routinely land at a tenth- to eleventh-grade level instead. When content sits several grades above its audience, comprehension drops before engagement can even begin.
It tells people what is true without telling them what to do. A 2025 quality-improvement study of 100 patient education materials in an academic health system found that materials were highly understandable, scoring 82% on understandability, but scored only 57% on actionability. In other words, people could follow the explanation but were left without a clear next step. Information that does not point toward action is easy to set aside.
It asks for more time and attention than people have. Research on the forgetting curve indicates that people lose a large majority of newly presented information within days if it is not reinforced, and engagement data shows how quickly attention fades in practice: a literature review in the Journal of Medical Internet Research found that roughly 71% of users disengage from a new digital activity within 90 days. Long, dense explanations are precisely the format people are least likely to return to.
When content feels like work, people tend to avoid it.
What Makes Content Easier to Use
The same research base that explains where content fails also points to what works. People engage more when content is short, plain, and oriented toward action.
Plain language is a measurable advantage, not a simplification. The CDC and NIH both recommend that public-facing health materials meet plain-language standards, and the comprehension gains are well documented. Writing at an accessible reading level widens the share of the audience that can actually use the material without diluting its accuracy.
Short, focused formats outperform long ones. Microlearning, which delivers content in brief segments of roughly three to ten minutes, consistently produces higher completion and retention than traditional formats. Microlearning courses see average completion rates near 80%, far above longer formats, according to eLearning Industry. Shorter content simply asks less of people, and asking less is often what gets them to engage at all.
Video, especially short video, fits how people prefer to learn. Consumer research finds that roughly 78% of people prefer short video when learning about a product or topic, and studies of health communication specifically show that short health videos are more likely to be viewed, shared, and liked than longer ones. Instructional and how-to videos tend to hold attention through completion better than other formats.
Across all of these, the common thread is reducing friction: getting to the point quickly, focusing on what someone can do next, and packaging it in a format that fits a normal day.
Balancing Credibility With Clarity
Clarity is sometimes treated as the enemy of credibility, as though plain content must be less rigorous. The evidence shows the opposite. Low health literacy is independently associated with worse outcomes, including greater difficulty following medical instructions and higher rates of hospitalization, according to the American Academy of Family Physicians. Making content harder to understand doesn’t make it more credible; it only makes it less likely to be acted on.
The strongest content does both at once. It keeps the clinical accuracy that earns trust while presenting it in language and formats people can actually use. Credibility and usability are not a trade-off to be balanced so much as two requirements that have to be met together.
Designing for Real Engagement
Organizations are shifting from focusing on what to include in their content to how it is delivered. A few evidence-backed approaches consistently improve engagement.
Break topics into small, repeatable steps. Behavioral science favors small actions over large ones. According to BJ Fogg’s Behavior Model, developed at Stanford, behavior happens when motivation, ability, and a prompt align. Small actions are particularly effective because they demand less motivation and are easier to perform, making them more likely to become consistent habits.
Use examples that reflect real situations. A 2021 systematic review by Børghouts and colleagues found that low perceived relevance was a central reason people disengage from digital health interventions. Content grounded in recognizable, real-life situations is more likely to feel relevant enough to act on.
Provide ongoing guidance, not one-time resources. This is where the science is most decisive. The widely cited 2010 study by Lally and colleagues at University College London found that forming a habit took an average of 66 days, ranging from 18 to 254. A single article cannot span that window; sustained, repeated contact can. Meta-analyses consistently find that human support, reminders, and check-ins reduce dropout.
The common goal is making it easy for people to come back, because returning is what turns information into behavior.
Expanding Across Different Use Cases
Health and wellness content is no longer confined to employer programs. It now appears in health plans supporting member education, in digital platforms that build wellbeing into the core product, and in travel and hospitality settings that serve both staff and guests. The contexts differ, but the underlying requirement is the same in each: content has to feel like a natural part of the experience rather than an extra task layered on top.
Reaching diverse audiences also depends on adaptation, not just translation. A systematic review of culturally adapted digital mental health programs found that combining translation with culturally relevant content and community input kept dropout rates below 11%. Programs that only translated content saw dropout rates as high as 56%. Multilingual availability matters, but cultural adaptation is what sustains engagement.
Why This Matters
When content is easy to use, people engage with it more. They return more often, apply what they learn, and build habits over time. The participation data highlights the challenge: most programs have utilization rates below 50%. The difference between content that is simply available and content that people actually use can determine whether a wellbeing investment succeeds or goes largely unused.
Where Things Are Headed
Organizations are placing more emphasis on how content performs in real use rather than how much of it exists. In practice, that means making content easier to access within the platforms people already use, supporting ongoing interaction instead of one-time consumption, and adapting material for different audiences and contexts.
Most organizations already have a strong content library in place, and that library is an asset. The research suggests its value is unlocked less by adding to it than by how it’s delivered: whether content is short enough to finish, plain enough to understand, actionable enough to apply, and sustained enough to build a habit. The same material, packaged to feel simple, relevant, and easy to return to, stops being something people skip and becomes something they actually use.
