AI VISIBILITY · HEALTHCARE & WELLNESS

AI Visibility for Healthcare & Wellness: patients ask AI first, make the answer accurate

Engines decide whether to cite your clinicians or a generic aggregator. Accuracy, authorship and structure decide it for them.

The shift

“Is this treatment safe?” “What does recovery actually look like?” “Best physiotherapy clinic near me.” Patients put these questions to assistants before they put them to a doctor. And the engines apply their strictest standards to health content: expertise and authority signals decide whether your pages are citable at all. Too often, the answer that wins is an aggregator's paraphrase rather than the provider who actually knows.

Misinformation cuts the other way too. When an engine repeats something wrong about your services, your pricing, or a treatment you offer, that's brand risk and patient risk in the same sentence.

What you see

The dashboard, in your category's terms

Brand Digestyour services, credentials and clinical facts as an authoritative record for engines to learn from.
Sentiment and negative-mention trackingthe trust language in AI answers about your brand, monitored every run, with the source behind every negative claim.
Content Pulseschema-aware authoring: medical schema, named and credentialed authors, the E-E-A-T signals engines check before citing health content.
Citationswhich sources the engines trust for your specialty, and what it takes to become one of them.
What we fix

Shipped with your team, verified live

Author pages with real credentials, structured medical content, llms.txt, clean sitemaps, shipped with your team and verified live. The pattern from our work in education, another trust-gated category, transfers directly: engines reward accuracy and structure fixes faster than volume plays, and they reward them measurably.

And because health claims carry consequences, nothing ships on our say-so alone. Your clinical reviewers approve every word; we supply the structure that makes those words citable.

~2 → ~1NEGATIVE MENTIONS PER RUN
83.1 → 84.2MENTION QUALITY
51.4% → 93.3%GOOGLE AI MENTION RATE

How we measure

Consistent measurement windows, normalized per monitored day, never cherry-picked dates.
Control brands and placebo checks separate campaign effect from the rising AI-search tide.
Every fix is verified live on production by independent audit before we count it.

The proof behind this page

In a comparably trust-sensitive category, Newton School's negative mentions fell from about two per run to about one, with multiple zero-negative runs, while mention quality rose from 83.1 to 84.2 and Google AI visibility climbed from 51.4% to 93.3%. Every fix shipped on a dated, client-confirmed schedule against daily measurement.

See it on your own prompts.

Book a demo and we run your category's questions live: what the engines say about you today, and what we'd fix first.