Improving reporting on medical studies

By Christy Fricks
Independent journalist

"It is possible for good health journalists to provide spectacular stories on health," said David Henry, CEO of the Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences. 

During the afternoon panel on "Statistics, Conclusions, Limitations: Reporting on Medical Studies" at the annual Association of Health Care Journalists meeting in Seattle both Henry and moderator Gary Schwitzer, concurred that most health and medical reporting is inaccurate, imbalanced and incomplete. "After three years and 750 stories reviewed there is still a ‘kid-in-the-candy-store projection of health' in most health news," Schwitzer said shortly before he launched into a dissection of several news stories.  

As producer of HealthNewsReview.org, Schwitzer's specialty is analyzing health reporting. HealthNewsReview regularly evaluates health and medical news based on 10 criteria: cost discussion, quantifying benefits, quantifying harms, discussing existing alternative options, seeking independent sources, avoiding disease mongering, discussing quality of the evidence, establishing true novelty, discussing availability and going beyond a news release.

"I believe that these criteria should apply to any form of media," he said.

Schwitzer repeatedly emphasized the need to seek out independent sources when reporting on medical studies. "Medical journals should not be a main source of news. Scientific meetings should not be a main source of news," said Schwitzer.  He also cautioned against depending on interviews gathered from attendees at medical meetings. "They may not have had time to digest what they have heard," he said.

As members of watchdog journalism groups, all three panelists agreed that ethics were the most importing on medical studies. "Writers should always consider the impact on their audience when they are writing a story," said Schwitzer.

"Are we advertising the drug or advertising the disease? Is this a real disease that requires a medicinal solution? Who says so? What are the ties of the talking heads to the drug or treatment?" these are the questions to ask, said panelist Alan Cassels creator of Media Doctor Canada.  In his talk on disease mongering, he reminded the audience that simply writing about a new drug, new test or a new diagnostic procedure generates demand. 

The general consensus of the panel was that, to produce good health journalism, journalists need more time to train, time to research their stories, and the space to report their findings, as well as the support of editors and managers. 

But the good news, according to Henry, is that most writers deal with the issue of whether a treatment is truly innovative, quite well.  He believes reporters need to work more on ensuring that health coverage directly connects with the intended audience. "Writers are knowledgeable about the science of medical studies. We need to understand the local context and make it a bigger part of coverage in order to make it relevant," he said.

Resources for reporting on medical studies, including a list of independent sources visit www.healthnewsreview.org and www.mediadoctor.org. Also watch for the upcoming AHCJ slim guide on medical research and reporting on studies.