Objective: To analyse the reviews of medical news articles posted on media doctor, a medical news-story monitoring website.
Design and setting: A descriptive summary of operating the media doctor website between 1 February and 1 September 2004.
Main outcome measures: Consensus scores for 10 assessment criteria for the medical intervention described in the article (novelty, availability in Australia, alternative treatment options given, evidence of “disease mongering”, objective supportive evidence given, quantification of benefits, coverage of harms, coverage of costs, independent sources of information, and excessive reliance on a press release); cumulative article rating scores for major media outlets.
Results: 104 news articles were featured on media doctor in the study period. Both online and print media scored poorly, although the print media were superior: mean total scores 56.1% satisfactory for print and 40.1% for online; percentage points difference 15.9 (95% CI, 8.3–23.6). The greatest differences were seen for the use of independent information sources, quantification of benefits and coverage of potential harms.
Conclusions: Australian lay news reporting of medical advances, particularly by the online news services, is poor. This might improve if journals and researchers became more active in communicating with the press and the public.
- 1. Chapman S, Lupton D. Freaks, moral tales and medical marvels: health and medical stories on Australian television. Media Information Australia 1994; 72: 94-103. Available at: http://tobacco.health.usyd.edu.au/site/supersite/contact/pdfs/MIAfreaks.pdf (accessed Jul 2005).
- 2. Entwistle V. Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers. BMJ 1995; 310: 920-923.
- 3. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1180-1183.
- 4. Johnson T. Shattuck Lecture: medicine and the media. N Engl J Med 1998; 339: 87-92.
- 5. Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet 1996; 347: 1600-1603.
- 6. Lawton B, Rose S, McLeod D, Dowell A. Changes in use of hormone replacement therapy after the report from the Women’s Health Initiative: cross sectional survey of users. BMJ 2003; 327: 845-846.
- 7. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1645-1650.
- 8. Cassels A, Hughes MA, Cole C, et al. Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs. CMAJ 2003; 168: 1133-1137.
- 9. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. The media matter: a call for straightforward medical reporting. Ann Intern Med 2004; 140: 226-228.
- 10. Larsson A, Oxman AD, Carling C, Herrin J. Medical messages in the media — barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism. Health Expect 2003; 6: 323-331.
- 11. Jamtvedt G, Young JM, Kristoffersen DT, et al. Audit and feedback: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2003; (3): CD000259.
- 12. National Health Service. National Electronic Library for Health. Hitting the headlines. Available at: http://www.nelh.nhs.uk/ (accessed Oct 2004).
- 13. Moynihan R, Health I, Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease-mongering. BMJ 2002; 324: 886-891.
- 14. Moxey A, O’Connell D, McGettigan P, Henry D. Describing treatment effects to patients: how they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med 2003; 18: 948-959.
- 15. Australian Press Council. General press release No. 245 (April 2001). Reporting guidelines. Available at: http://www.presscouncil.org.au/pcsite/activities/guides/gpr245.html (accessed Oct 2004).
- 16. Schwitzer G. Improving health and medical journalism. Website available at: http://www.tc.umn.edu/~schwitz/ (accessed Oct 2004).
- 17. Sweet M. Website gives media the tough treatment. BMJ 2004; 329: 178.
- 18. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA 2002; 287: 2856-2858.
Publication of your online response is subject to the Medical Journal of Australia's editorial discretion. You will be notified by email within five working days should your response be accepted.