22 November 2008
Tackling scare-mongering in health reports
30 April 2007
Commentary by Priscilla Duncan: Te Waha Nui Online
Health reports presented by the media are important because many people use them as a major source of their health education. Journalists therefore have a responsibility to ensure that they are not misleading the public.
The study of the causes and patterns of disease in human populations, or epidemiology, is often hyped up by the media.
People are naturally intrigued by latest research that explains why we get cancer, heart disease, or diabetes. This raises ethical questions for journalists, who have been accused of latching on to individual studies and making hasty conclusions in order to stimulate public debate.
A recent front page article in the New Zealand Herald sensationalised a study that links desk-bound work with the development of blood clots.
The March 12 article entitled “Deadly threat in the office” claimed that workers who spend hours behind a desk were more likely to develop deep vein thrombosis (DVT) than passengers on long-haul flights.
The article referred to what it called the world leading New Zealand study which involved 62 DVT sufferers at Wellington Hospital. The study found that one third of the participants had worked a desk job for the previous four weeks, while only one fifth had been on a long-haul flight.
The article, by health reporter Martin Johnston, showed an inaccurate analysis of the statistics. While a greater percentage of DVT sufferers were office workers than international travellers, that is also true of the population as a whole.
Johnston’s article seemed rather dramatic given that the study was conducted with a small sample size, no control group, and it did not ask how many travellers also had office jobs.
Mistake acknowledged
The Herald acknowledged the mistake in a correction on page nine the next day.
 |
|
The online article now reads: “An earlier version of this story wrongly stated that office workers were at greater risk than long-distance air travellers.
“The study found that 34 per cent of people presenting at Wellington Hospital with blood clots reported sitting for long hours in the office whereas only 21 per cent had recently been on a flight of more than four hours.
“However, the report did not take into account the fact that the former group would have been drawn from a far greater number of people than the latter.”
So how did the Herald get it so wrong?
Inaccurate analysis of studies in epidemiology by journalists is often due to time pressure. Reporters are constantly working to deadlines and competing against other publications to report news first.
The Sydney Daily Telegraph first broke the blood clots story. Telegraph reporter Clair Weaver found the abstract for the study among dozens listed in the schedule of the upcoming conference for the Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand.
The Australian national news agency AAP then distributed a story to all of its subscribers throughout Australia and New Zealand, according to Radio New Zealand’s Mediawatch programme.
Rush to report
In the rush to report what seemed such a significant finding, most New Zealand papers carried the story the next day.
The time pressures that journalists face do not always allow for an in-depth analysis of the research.
Dr Miriam Nakatsuji, of Middlemore Hospital, says time is essential when it comes to analysing health studies.
“At medical school we learn ways to thoroughly assess research,” said Dr Nakatsuji. “It is far more credible if it is an independent, randomised, controlled study with large numbers of people.”
Journalists are not always taught these analytical skills. This is especially true at smaller newspapers, where limited budgets restrict the possibility of having specialised health reporters. Inexperienced journalists can be manipulated by their information sources.
“You can’t always trust the authors of a study because they might be jumping to a conclusion in order to look good,” said Dr Nakatsuji. “Sometimes it’s the pharmaceutical companies who are responsible for a study and they’re usually just trying to sell their product.”
Another reason why journalists sometimes overlook information is because they are trying to keep things simple. Complex issues are avoided because readers are likely to lose interest. This can lead to over-simplification and misinformation.
Journalists also make mistakes and hype up studies in epidemiology because of commercial pressures. Newspapers are money-making businesses. They must attract readers and work hard to keep their owners, boards, and advertisers happy.
Focus on controversy
There is a tendency to focus on drama and controversy to make articles more interesting.
Dr Susan Morton, senior lecturer in epidemiology at Auckland University, believes this is the reason why reports are not always balanced.
“In general, media reports pick out selected pieces of information that will appeal to the public,” said Dr Morton. “But this is understandable when you look at the pressure writers are under to sell their stories.”
So does it really matter if journalists misread statistics and hype up reports?
Dr Morton believes it does. She thinks the media should not resort to scare-mongering tactics.
“The main thing is that we don’t want the public worrying about things they don’t have to worry about,” she said. “From a research side of things, it would be good to see a more balanced approach to reporting health studies.”
Health reports presented by the media are important because many people use them as a major source of their health education. Journalists therefore have a responsibility to ensure that they are not misleading the public.
Karen Kotze, health reporter for the East & Bays Courier, says that sources are crucial.
Backing up medically
“I talk to as many people as possible and never write single-source stories,” said Kotze. “Any comment I get I make sure it can be backed up medically.”
It is important for journalists to test the reliability of the information they receive. The first thing is to check whether a study has gone through a peer review system.
The DVT study reported in the Herald earlier this month had not been peer reviewed or even published. Journalists who report non-peer-reviewed studies run the risk of misleading the public and embarrassing themselves.
Journalists should also remember to analyse statistics carefully and not blow things out of proportion. Individual studies provide clues about the causes and preventions of diseases, but they should not be reported as definite proof.
Ellen Shell writes in her article “The Risk of Risk Studies” that “there are very few, if any, genuine ‘breakthroughs’ in science or medicine, yet too often researchers are pressed into implying, and journalists into reporting, that breakthroughs have been made.”
This focus on breaking news discourages the coverage of long-term issues or issues that require extensive background. Media attention should not drop off after the initial dramatic event.
Auckland lecturer Susan Morton believes the relationship between journalists and scientists is vital.
“Scientists and journalists have very different jobs to do but they can be of mutual benefit to each other,” said Dr Morton.
“Sometimes there is a strained relationship between the two groups but it’s important to get the health messages out to the public in plain English.”
It is also ethical for media companies to notify the public when a mistake has been made. The front page Herald article about blood clots was followed by a correction buried on page nine the following day. It is likely that many people would have missed the correction.
In cases such as this one, a greater effort should be made to give the correction as much prominence as the original story.
Priscilla Duncan is a student journalist in AUT’s School of Communication Studies. This article was an ethics assignment in the Public Affairs Reporting paper.
Links:
- Deadly threat in the office, NZ Herald, 12 March 2007
- Mediawatch
