Medical News Reporting Is A Joint Responsibility Shared By Journalists, Editors and Authors
Reporting of medical advances in the Australian lay press, particularly by online news services, is poor, according to research published in the current issue of the Medical Journal of Australia.
The authors say this might improve if journal editors and researchers became more active in communicating with the press and the public.
Newspapers, radio and television are a source of health information for the public and also for doctors.
Co-author, David Henry, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology at the University of Newcastle, says medical news reports can change consumer behaviour, like the recent wholesale abandonment of hormone replacement therapy after adverse publicity.
He says medical news reports must be balanced and accurate and attribute their sources, disclosing complete information and possible conflicts of interest.
"We believe web-based audits of medical news reports have the potential to improve the quality of media articles," Professor Henry says.
The authors report the early experience of operating media doctor, a website that publishes quality assessments and critiques of Australian lay press news articles about medical treatments, including drugs, procedures and diagnostic tests. The site aims to encourage journalists to report all-important information about new treatments. Media doctor was recently awarded the Australian Skeptics Eureka Prize for critical thinking and similar sites are now being established in Canada and the United States.
One hundred and four news articles featured on media doctor between 1 February and 1 September 2004 were included in the study. Both online and print media scored poorly, although the print media were superior. The authors suspect that the sense of immediacy that goes with online news reporting may be compromising standards.
The main problems identified were inadequate presentation of evidence on benefits and harms of the interventions, and failure to mention the cost of treatments or to obtain independent expert commentary.
"A disadvantage of the study is that, during the study period, the media doctor website only covered five major media outlets (The Age, The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, ABC news online and ninemsn)," Professor Henry says.
In the same issue of the Journal, commentaries from three journalists Melissa Sweet (Freelance writer), Norman Swan (The Health Report) and Jack Herman (Executive Secretary of the Australian Press Council) were supportive of the aims of the media doctor website, but expressed some reservations about whether critiques of news articles will bring about an improvement in the quality of media reporting of health issues.
Professor Henry believes that the main advantages of the media doctor website are that the review process is ongoing, with over 400 critiqued news articles now available to be read by journalists and the public. The authors plan to provide an automatic alert to media outlets when one of their articles features on the site. They'll also send a report card to editors and producers, summarising the performance of the company and their competitors.
They say the responsibility for poor medical news reporting belongs not solely to journalists and editors, but also to investigators who should communicate more effectively with journalists.
"In our view, both editorial staff and authors should take responsibility for improving this situation," say the authors.
Martin Van Der Weyden, MJA Editor, in a linked editorial, says it's the attitudes of journalists, their editors and program executives that drive standards. He outlines recently advanced principles, which include: don't report preliminary findings, communicate the absolute magnitude of differences, and include study limitations.
To ensure medical news reports are as accurate and as accessible as possible, press releases should clearly state the main points that the researcher or health experts believe are important. Press releases should also include relevant caveats on industry funding and other financial matters, he says.
"The public places a great deal of trust in the health care system and in medical news, particularly if it is based on peer-reviewed data published by medical experts. It would be a pity to destroy such trust through substandard reporting," Dr Van Der Weyden says.
Media doctor website: http://www.mediadoctor.org.au
The Medical Journal of Australia is a publication of the Medical Journal of Australia.
CONTACT Dr Martin VAN DER WEYDEN 02 9562 6666
Professor David HENRY 0419 284 883 / 02 4921 1856
Judith TOKLEY, AMA Public Affairs, 0408 824 306 / 02 6270 5471