1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
Betsy Q. Cliff's 2010 Body of Work.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
"Is the Treatment Worse Than the Disease," May 3, 2010
"A Mental Timeout," Aug. 12, 2010
"What Seems to be the Truth?," Nov. 1, 2010
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
My beat as one of The Bulletin's health reporters on the features desk is primarily helping readers make decisions about their own health. Under that charge, I have concentrated on reporting on health trends, developments or issues that make a difference in the lives of readers. I strive to present issues in a deep but uncomplicated way so that the general reader learns enough about an issue to think about it intelligently. I try to go past the news-you-can-use aspect of the beat to explain why a particular recommendation might be changing or the import of various medical studies.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
These stories were primarily based on medical studies and expert interviews. For all of these stories, I amassed as many medical studies as I could because I was often going against what had previously been said or written. FOI and public records requests were not required.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
I drew on interviews with experts across a number of medical fields to report these stories. In reporting breast cancer, I was going against some of the conventional wisdom and ideas of local doctors, so wanted to make sure I contacted enough people to be sure of my case. In reporting about concussions and lies, there were very specific experts I sought out as both have very few people who study the exact topic I wanted to explore.
6. Results (if any).
Good feedback from readers but stories did not demand governmental or other action. After (though not because of) my article on early treatment for breast cancer, a number of other studies supporting the article were released, suggesting that doctors may want to hold off on aggressive treatment for very early stage breast cancer.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No corrections or clarifications.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Health journalists are often required to do consumer-friendly pieces and sometimes feel they are boring. This does not have to be the case. Looking for an unexplored area within a topic, as with concussion, or a topic that is in plain view but little discussed, as with the communication at a physician visit, can yield interesting stories. Breast cancer began with an off-hand comment by an expert being interviewed for a different story, that most people with early-stage breast cancer didn't need treatment. That led me to the studies, which gave evidence of that fact, but which had not been reported in that light. From there, I built the case that there might be a better way to deal with these patients.