Study raises concerns over disclosure in health stories

By Phil Galewitz
From the Fall 2008 issue of HealthBeat

Health journalists used to covering studies in the Journal of the American Medical Association recently found themselves on the receiving end of a scientific inquiry in the peer-reviewed publication.

And the results were not pretty.

The news media often fail to report when drug company funding is used for studies of medications, according to a study, published in the Oct. 1 issue , by doctors at the Cambridge Health Alliance in Cambridge, Mass., a hospital system affiliated with Harvard and Tufts universities' medical schools.

The study also found and faulted a tendency among reporters to use brand names, rather than generic names, when referring to prescription medications.

Both of these factors work to skew public and medical opinion toward commercial interests, according to the study.

"As a doctor, I am increasingly worried that company-funded research can't be trusted in the same way that other research can be," said study author Michael Hochman, M.D., a resident physician at  Cambridge Health Alliance. Citing Merck-funded studies of the Vioxx arthritis pill, he said there are many examples of how company-led research has "led us astray."

The authors of the study analyzed 306 news articles about medication research from U.S. newspaper and online sites, and asked 100 editors at the largest U.S. newspapers about their reporting practices. The studies that were analyzed had been published in five major medical journals, including JAMA and the New England Journal of Medicine.

Forty-two percent of the news articles did not state when drug research had received funding from the pharmaceutical industry. When they did, it was often buried in the text.

The study excluded stories under 200 words, in which journalists could argue there wasn't sufficient space to identify the research funders.

Sixty-seven percent of 277 articles that reported on medications only used the drug's brand name in at least half of the references to the medication.

According to the study authors, up to $9 billion is spent each year in the United States when doctors prescribe brand-name drugs in cases where a generic would do just as well.

In contrast to the study findings, nearly 90 percent of the responding newspaper editors thought that articles they published often or always mentioned company funding. Seventy-seven percent of the editors thought their stories referred to medications by their generic names.

Three percent of the newspapers surveyed had formal, written policies regarding disclosure of company funding, and 2 percent had such policies regarding the use of generic names of drugs.

The study authors said their findings raised the question of whether journalists are being influenced by drug company promotions.

The AHCJ Statement of Principles calls on medical journalists to "investigate and report possible links between sources of information and those who promote a new idea or therapy."

"The study points to the ongoing need to educate journalists and their editors about the importance of reporting potential financial conflicts of interest in medical research. As journalists, we need to be even better watchdogs," said Mary Chris Jaklevic, an AHCJ board member and head of the AHCJ's Right-to-Know Committee.

Hochman acknowledges his idea to have media use only generic names won't be easy. But he said his goal is to increase attention to generics. "It's the right thing to do," he said.

Phil Galewitz is editor of HealthBeat, an AHCJ board member and a health writer for The Palm Beach Post.