List date(s) this work was published or aired.
The change in mammogram guidelines: 3/7/11 (Los Angeles Times) Avastin and the Power of Hope: 7/1/11 (Last Word on Nothing) Breast Cancer’s False Narrative: 10/6/11 (Last Word on Nothing) Kiddie Cholesterol: 12/19/11 (Slate)
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The beat: These stories explore the intersection of evidence and medical decision-making. The pieces examine how medical research is translated into practice, and how narratives influence the way that evidence is interpreted by patients and their doctors. Breast Cancer’s False Narrative explores how the stories we tell about medical research can lead us astray. Kiddie Cholesterol shows how conflicts of interest and dependence on surrogate endpoints can result in practices that may cause more harm than good. Avastin and the Power of Hope looks at what happens when evidence fails to affirm hope. The Change in Mammogram Guidelines examines how controversial breast cancer screening guidelines are being put into use in the real world.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Research for these articles depended on journal articles and public reports from consensus panels. For the Kiddie Cholesterol story, the Brownlee-Lenzer database was used to identify sources without conflicts. No FOIs were required.
Explain types of human sources used.
All research was done by the reporter.
Results:
While these stories did not provoke any policy changes (at least not to my knowledge), they did spark discussions. In particular, Breast Cancer’s False Narrative went viral on the internet. It garnered more than 1,300 “likes” on Facebook and was referenced or reprinted on numerous blogs and social media sites. Avastin and the Power of Hope and Kiddie Cholesterol were also cited by other journalists or bloggers.
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.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Every source has a point of view and a bias. When reporting a controversial issue, it’s important to talk with sources with different perspectives and training. Don’t rely entirely on a physician to explain statistics, ask an epidemiologist or statistician too. Always read the methods and results sections of any journal article. Sometimes the sweeping conclusions in the abstract aren’t supported by the data. If you don’t feel comfortable checking the data, find someone who does, preferably someone without a stake in the research.