Issue 45,

September 2008

PDF

Arguably, researchers who are funded from the public purse have an obligation to communicate their findings to the public. Communicating with the news media offers an avenue for reaching the public that goes beyond publishing in peer-reviewed journals and presenting at academic conferences. But choosing this route presents its own set of challenges. Many researchers have encountered an uncompromising reporter – one who privileges compelling stories and human drama over high-quality research evidence. In the same way, many journalists have encountered an uncompromising researcher – one who is rarely available or, when they are, isn’t able to articulate the research in a way that is understandable to a lay audience. These encounters make for less-than-optimal conditions for relationship-building between the two groups – and yet, building relationships is paramount to improving the overall quality of health news reporting. i

Current evidence suggests health news coverage often leaves much to be desired.
In an analysis of news media coverage of the benefits and risks of medications, for example, investigators found that U.S. print and television news reporting tended to over-report benefits and under-report risks, costs, and financial ties between researchers and pharmaceutical companies. ii A study on the quality of drug reporting by the Canadian news media found similar results. iii Most recently, Cassels and Lexchin (2008) reported on the state of news reporting of new medical treatments as part of their work with Media Doctor Canada. More than half of the time, they found that reporting warranted a “not satisfactory” rating based on a number of reporting criteria that included coverage of treatment harms, costs, options, and the nature of research evidence. iv

And there are other examples that, although not quite as clear-cut, have much to say about the quality of news reporting. Collins et al. (2006) found that reporting of the 2002 Canadian healthcare reform debate was, by and large, too general to lead to any real policy changes. v And Hayes et al. (2007) found that Canadian newspapers rarely reported on socioeconomic factors, even though it’s well-understood by the research community that these factors significantly shape population health outcomes. vi

These findings are worth noting, given that news reporting can influence the beliefs and behaviour of its audience. A 2002 Cochrane Review assessing the effects of mass media (news media, but public health advertising) on health services use found that positive reporting of a health service or intervention (for example, immunizations and screening) was associated with a higher use of health services, while unfavourable publicity was associated with lower use. vii

Perhaps the greatest barrier to improving the quality of news media coverage is that there are too few well-developed relationships between researchers and journalists. In interviews with Canadian news reporters, Waddell et al. (2005) found that the biggest obstacle to reporting on timely health research issues is the failure of researchers to understand the professional realities of journalism, coupled with a lack of ongoing relationships between journalists and researchers. i To help ensure important stories get told and to enhance quality in health reporting, researchers and journalists must work together. For journalists, this will involve sharpening their research appraisal skills. viii For researchers, this will involve making themselves available when they are called upon to offer subject expertise and to respect the deadlines that shape much daily news reporting. For research to transfer well into the news, the research must also be simplified, synthesized, and, most importantly, compelling. i

Reference(s)

i. Waddell C, Lomas J, Lavis JN, Abelson JA, Shepherd CA & Bird-Gayson T. 2005. “Joining the conversation: Newspaper journalists’ views on working with researchers.” Healthcare Policy; 1(1): 123-136.

ii. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, Watkins J, Mah C, & Soumerai SB. 2000. The New England Journal of Medicine; 342 (22): 1645-1650.

iii. Cassels A, Hughes MA, Cole C, Mintzes B, Lexchin J, & McCormack JP. 2002. Drugs in the news: an analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of new prescription drugs. Canadian Medical Association Journal; 168(9): 1133-1137.

iv. Cassels A & Lexchin J. 2008. “How well do Canadian media outlets convey medical treatment information? Initial findings from a year and a half of media monitoring by Media Doctor Canada.” Open Medicine; 2(2). http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/view/170/131

v. Collins PA, Abelson J, Pyman H & Lavis JN. 2006. “Are we expecting too much from print media? An analysis of newspaper coverage of the 2002 Canadian healthcare reform debate.” Social Science and Medicine; 63: 89-102.

vi. Hayes MV, Ross IE, Gasher M, Gutstein D, Dunn JR & Hackett RA. 2007. “Telling stories: news media, health literacy and public policy in Canada.” Social Science and Medicine; 64: 1842-1852.

vii. Grilli R, Ramsay C & Minozzi S. 2002. “Mass media interventions: Effects on health services utilisation.” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2002, Issue 1. Art No.: CD000389). DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD000389.

viii. Moynihan, R. 2003. “Making medical journalism healthier.” Lancet; 361(9375): 2097-2098.

For Further Reading

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. “Communication notes. Dealing with the media.”

Canadian Health Services Research Foundation. A summary of Waddell et al.’s 2005 “Joining the conversation: Newspaper journalists’ views on working with researchers.” Insight and Action; Issue 15.

Committee of Concerned Journalists. "What citizens should expect from the press."

Media Doctor Canada.