Tara Haelle (@TaraHaelle) is AHCJ's medical studies core topic leader, guiding journalists through the jargon-filled shorthand of science and research and enabling them to translate the evidence into accurate information.
Most reporting on medical research relies on peer-reviewed studies published in medical journals. But independent corporations, nonprofits, advocacy organizations and other institutions conduct their own research. Moreover, they seek media coverage of their findings, usually (albeit not always) to serve their objectives and interests.
One such organization is a think tank, an organization ostensibly aimed at objectively researching and analyzing a particular issue and policy solutions to that issue – but, more often, influenced by an ideological bias that drives their findings. Continue reading →
Tara Haelle (@TaraHaelle) is AHCJ's medical studies core topic leader, guiding journalists through the jargon-filled shorthand of science and research and enabling them to translate the evidence into accurate information.
It doesn’t take long for many journalists to end up on a slew of PR and marketing lists. Pitch emails roll in 24/7 to promote a product, announce a new study, suggest a story idea or offer up an expert to comment on the pitches or a future story.
Most of these emails end up in the trash, opened or not, but the daily influx occasionally contains a few gems. Continue reading →
Tara Haelle (@TaraHaelle) is AHCJ's medical studies core topic leader, guiding journalists through the jargon-filled shorthand of science and research and enabling them to translate the evidence into accurate information.
Lots of challenges have faced medical publishing as the Internet has evolved. From predatory journals to the rise of open access journals to the simple fact that the stacks and stacks of physical paper journals are depleting, removing a long-time key funding source.
Tara Haelle (@TaraHaelle) is AHCJ's medical studies core topic leader, guiding journalists through the jargon-filled shorthand of science and research and enabling them to translate the evidence into accurate information.
Last month, we wrote about the back-and-forth between the New England Journal of Medicine and BMJ regarding conflict of interest policies for researchers who write commentaries or review articles. But conflicts of interest can show up in more than one way in covering medical research – including among journalists and journalism outlets themselves.
In a piece at HealthNewsReview.org, veteran health journalist Trudy Lieberman discusses the confusing and “unsavory” partnership between the Mayo Clinic and Twin Cities NBC affiliate KARE 11 in Minneapolis, where sports news is delivered from the “Mayo Clinic’s Sports Medicine Sports Desk.” Continue reading →
Tara Haelle (@TaraHaelle) is AHCJ's medical studies core topic leader, guiding journalists through the jargon-filled shorthand of science and research and enabling them to translate the evidence into accurate information.
A game of inside baseball is being played between two of the most venerated medical journals, and journalists may want to be sure they have a seat near the dugout. The game centers on one of the most important aspects of reporting on medical studies: identifying and making sense of researchers’ potential financial conflicts of interest.
In nearly every medical study, usually somewhere near the end or on the bottom of the first page, the authors declare any conflicts of interest or disclosures they may have that relate to the topic of the study. For editorials and commentaries, authors include the same, though many high-impact journals do not publish review articles and similar viewpoint-based papers by authors who have real or perceived conflicts of interest. Continue reading →
Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates AHCJ's social media efforts and edits and manages production of association guides, programs and newsletters.
Documents obtained after a long FOIA battle reveal “behind-the-scenes maneuvers and long-standing connections between the scientists’ group and government officials” in the debate over whether Lyme disease can be chronic.
The debate, and the fight for the documents, are detailed by Mary Beth Pfeiffer in the Poughkeepsie (N.Y.) Journal and by documentary film maker Kris Newby on IRE’s Transparency Watch blog.
In 2007, in doing research for a film, Newby requested emails and resumes pertaining to three employees at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention. She writes that “For five years the agency strung me along with frivolous denials, mysterious delays, shifting explanations and false promises. In essence, the delays became an illegal, off-the-books FOIA denial.” Her account of how the CDC handled – or didn’t handle – her request is alarming.
Newby, whose film had been completed, provided the 3,000 pages of documents to Pfeiffer.
The documents show close connections between the government officials who set disease policy and researchers who have received government funds and written treatment guidelines. “As a result, physicians and scientists with opposing views on Lyme disease believe they have been marginalized in the debate.” This graphic provides a good overview of the connections and issues.
Most reporting on medical research relies on peer-reviewed studies published in medical journals. But independent corporations, nonprofits, advocacy organizations and other institutions conduct their own research. Moreover, they seek media coverage of their findings, usually (albeit not always) to serve their objectives and interests.
