User login
When patients read about scientific findings, it’s often news that is “exaggerated, sensationalistic, or alarmist,” charge researchers from Cardiff University and Swansea University, both in the United Kingdom, and University of New South Wales and University of Wollongong, both in Australia. But who is responsible for the information inflation? Journalists? Media outlets? Actually, most of the inflation does not originate with the media, the researchers discovered, but was “already present in the text of the press releases produced by academics and their establishments.”
The researchers evaluated 462 biomedical and health-related university press releases from 2011, looking for such things as advice to readers to change behavior, causal statements drawn from correlational results, and inference to humans from animal research.
They found that 33% to 40% of biomedical and health-related press releases contained exaggerated statements compared with the corresponding peer-reviewed journal articles.
Related: Searching for Information the Circadian Way
Moreover, when the press releases contained exaggeration, it was 6.5 times more likely that the resulting news items would be exaggerated as well, the researchers say (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-12.4). But when the releases did not contain exaggeration, the rates of exaggeration in the news went down significantly (95% CI, 28%-53%).
One reason for hyperbolic press releases might be the belief that they generate news interest. Contrary to that expectation, the researchers found, the proportion of press releases with ≥ 1 associated news story did not differ significantly between those with exaggeration and those without (odds ratio, 1.3).
Another fear is that including caveats and justifications—such as “The scientists who carried out the study emphasized that they could not say for certain…”—would reduce news uptake. But in fact, the researchers found caveats to causal statements were actually associated with higher uptake (69% vs 51%).
Related: Assessment of Health Literacy as a Predictor of Asthma Exacerbation
The researchers hasten to explain they are not arguing that accurate or even cautious press release claims are enough to help readers make well-informed health choices. And they also discourage the urge to blame journalists and the university press officers. The researchers point out that most of the press releases studied were drafted by press officers in dialogue with scientists who signed off on them before publication.
Source
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g7015.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7015.
When patients read about scientific findings, it’s often news that is “exaggerated, sensationalistic, or alarmist,” charge researchers from Cardiff University and Swansea University, both in the United Kingdom, and University of New South Wales and University of Wollongong, both in Australia. But who is responsible for the information inflation? Journalists? Media outlets? Actually, most of the inflation does not originate with the media, the researchers discovered, but was “already present in the text of the press releases produced by academics and their establishments.”
The researchers evaluated 462 biomedical and health-related university press releases from 2011, looking for such things as advice to readers to change behavior, causal statements drawn from correlational results, and inference to humans from animal research.
They found that 33% to 40% of biomedical and health-related press releases contained exaggerated statements compared with the corresponding peer-reviewed journal articles.
Related: Searching for Information the Circadian Way
Moreover, when the press releases contained exaggeration, it was 6.5 times more likely that the resulting news items would be exaggerated as well, the researchers say (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-12.4). But when the releases did not contain exaggeration, the rates of exaggeration in the news went down significantly (95% CI, 28%-53%).
One reason for hyperbolic press releases might be the belief that they generate news interest. Contrary to that expectation, the researchers found, the proportion of press releases with ≥ 1 associated news story did not differ significantly between those with exaggeration and those without (odds ratio, 1.3).
Another fear is that including caveats and justifications—such as “The scientists who carried out the study emphasized that they could not say for certain…”—would reduce news uptake. But in fact, the researchers found caveats to causal statements were actually associated with higher uptake (69% vs 51%).
Related: Assessment of Health Literacy as a Predictor of Asthma Exacerbation
The researchers hasten to explain they are not arguing that accurate or even cautious press release claims are enough to help readers make well-informed health choices. And they also discourage the urge to blame journalists and the university press officers. The researchers point out that most of the press releases studied were drafted by press officers in dialogue with scientists who signed off on them before publication.
Source
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g7015.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7015.
When patients read about scientific findings, it’s often news that is “exaggerated, sensationalistic, or alarmist,” charge researchers from Cardiff University and Swansea University, both in the United Kingdom, and University of New South Wales and University of Wollongong, both in Australia. But who is responsible for the information inflation? Journalists? Media outlets? Actually, most of the inflation does not originate with the media, the researchers discovered, but was “already present in the text of the press releases produced by academics and their establishments.”
The researchers evaluated 462 biomedical and health-related university press releases from 2011, looking for such things as advice to readers to change behavior, causal statements drawn from correlational results, and inference to humans from animal research.
They found that 33% to 40% of biomedical and health-related press releases contained exaggerated statements compared with the corresponding peer-reviewed journal articles.
Related: Searching for Information the Circadian Way
Moreover, when the press releases contained exaggeration, it was 6.5 times more likely that the resulting news items would be exaggerated as well, the researchers say (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.5-12.4). But when the releases did not contain exaggeration, the rates of exaggeration in the news went down significantly (95% CI, 28%-53%).
One reason for hyperbolic press releases might be the belief that they generate news interest. Contrary to that expectation, the researchers found, the proportion of press releases with ≥ 1 associated news story did not differ significantly between those with exaggeration and those without (odds ratio, 1.3).
Another fear is that including caveats and justifications—such as “The scientists who carried out the study emphasized that they could not say for certain…”—would reduce news uptake. But in fact, the researchers found caveats to causal statements were actually associated with higher uptake (69% vs 51%).
Related: Assessment of Health Literacy as a Predictor of Asthma Exacerbation
The researchers hasten to explain they are not arguing that accurate or even cautious press release claims are enough to help readers make well-informed health choices. And they also discourage the urge to blame journalists and the university press officers. The researchers point out that most of the press releases studied were drafted by press officers in dialogue with scientists who signed off on them before publication.
Source
Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, et al. BMJ. 2014;349:g7015.
doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7015.