List date(s) this work was published or aired.
October issue, 2012
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The author examines a new provincial flu policy through the lens of the best available evidence–synopses of evidence produced by the Cochrane Collaboration–and finds little benefit in the more rigidly applied flu vaccination policy for health workers.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Data incorporated into this article include four large systematic reviews of flu vaccine policies, the Cochrane Collaboration’s meta-analysis of flu vaccines, BC’s new influenza policy, plus background articles on international flu vaccine policies in the British Medical Journal.
Explain types of human sources used.
Interviews with Dr. Tom Jefferson in Rome, a researcher in the Cochrane influenza vaccine area, Dr. Perry Kendall, BC’s Provincial Health Officer and Dr. Jim Wright, head of the Therapeutics Initiative at University of British Columbia.
Results:
Flu policy is a highly contested area where the evidence supporting such policies seem to be weak and sometimes contradictory according to independent evaluations of this research. While the flu itself accords little benefit to the average person, the more aggressive policy, as applied to health workers only seems to make sense if it is implemented with rigorous evaluation. And there are very weak reasons why such an evaluation is not happening.
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.
The Provincial Health Officer, Dr. Perry Kendall wrote a rebuttal to my article in the November issue of Focus Magazine. His rebuttal did not use any new evidence but reinforced the fact that this is a highly contested area of public health. I wrote a rebuttal to his rebuttal which appeared in the December issue. One day before the policy was to be implemented, (December 1st) the BC government backed away and cancelled the mandatory nature of the policy.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Vaccines are extremely controversial, yet there are some good quality sources of independent evaluation (via the Cochrane Collaboration and other sources) that can be used to challenge the pronouncements of the public health officials and make their decisions more transparent. This kind of challenge makes them publicly confirm where these public health measures are supported by evidence, and where they rely on conjecture, expert opinion or international consensus, which itself is rooted in conflicting views of the evidence. There is a very interesting ‘back story’ to the effects of my story in Focus Magazine, including an incredible amount of local and national media attention that the story generated, the interest by the public health unions and groups of workers who were concerned about the policy, and the fact that the controversy which erupted, at least partly stoked by my article, probably contributed to the cancellation of the policy in the form that was intended. I have been asked to give a number of talks on my piece as well as describe why public health measures such as these are facing such a cynical public. It’s been an incredible learning experience.