NHS public pages
UK governmentThe NHS website, funded by the Department of Health and Social Care and commissioned by NHS England, as described in its content policy. · United Kingdom
Visit the source site · Audited 2026-10-14
Who pays for it
The NHS says DHSC funds the website, which carries no advertising or corporate sponsorship; the sampled page's specific cost is not stated.
Status: Labeled
NHS public pages have government funding and policy sign-off, and the sampled pregnancy page is a broad signpost rather than a medicine-by-medicine review. SafeMomma shows a UK-government label and does not use the page alone for clinical evidence.
How SafeMomma uses it
Used as visibly labeled UK public signposting or policy information, not as the sole clinical evidence source.
The audit
- Who controls it
- The NHS content policy says DHSC funds the website, NHS England commissions it, and NHS Digital delivers it. Clinical content receives clinician approval, with extra review for major changes and policy-related content.
- Money
- The NHS says DHSC funds its website and that it carries no advertising or corporate sponsorship. This applies to the website, not all NHS funding; no industry income for the sampled public pages was identified.
- Conflict rules
- The policy says staff and outside contributors disclose healthcare-related interests, which senior content and clinical leaders review. The policy does not show a named conflict statement on every article.
- Method
- The policy says content draws on user research, clinical sources, clinician experience, and evidence resources. The sampled pregnancy page points readers to BUMPS/UKTIS and is a general signpost, not a medicine-by-medicine review.
- Dates on its pages
- The sampled pregnancy page displayed an update date of 23 September 2025; the content policy was last reviewed 14 October 2022 and was due for review 14 October 2025.
- Political exposure
- Government funding and policy sign-off create structural exposure. In September 2025, the NHS page added a paracetamol/autism statement after an MHRA statement first published on 22 September; the reviewed record found no evidence that an official ordered a rewrite or changed the clinical conclusion.
- Money exposure
- No pharmaceutical-industry funding, advertising, or corporate sponsorship was identified for the sampled pages. Government funding and policy alignment are structural exposure, not evidence that a funder changed a conclusion.
- Track record
- NHS public pages were not assessed as a named source in the five b1–b5 backtests. The audit found no correction, retraction, or pregnancy-specific major error in its sampled page; that page is broad signposting rather than a detailed medicine review.
Where this comes from
Incentive exposure describes pressure from money or politics, not whether the source is right. Funding alone does not show influence.