Context refers to the background information about a condition, treatment, and/or scientific question, and what the research to date has uncovered about the topic. It’s important for journalists to provide context when reporting on study results to avoid confusing their audience and avoid the appearance that different or conflicting results from different studies means science is “broken” or a different study is “wrong.” The most common examples of the frustration readers can feel with conflicting results given without context are findings from observational studies about the effects of coffee, chocolate or red wine, all of which have allegedly been shown to have health benefits and health risks, sometimes in ways that conflict.
Deeper dive
No matter what study you’re covering, or what dramatic truth it seems to tell, the fact is that science doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Evidence came before; evidence will come after. No one study is ever the answer. It requires repetition of studies and retesting of hypotheses and research questions to gradually reach a consensus on a particular question.
However, doing so means that multiple studies will have different results, sometimes with small differences and sometimes with dramatically different or even opposite results. All this testing and refuting may be good for science, but it can be really bad for readers who are trying to make choices about their own health. Health reporters can help keep readers from getting whiplash with every headline by putting studies in context.
Think of context as showing readers the lay of the land. Here’s what doctors and patients have known about this idea in the past. Here’s what previous studies have shown. In a sense, you’re trying to give them an idea of how much certainty or skepticism to use as they read about the findings. Is there a mountain of evidence to back up the findings of the study you’re covering (smoking causes lung cancer), or is your study the kind of research that turns everything we thought we knew on its head (i.e. lower sodium diets may actually be bad for health)?
Many reporters who cover medical studies may start by working with just a copy of the study and perhaps a press release that goes along with it. Study authors usually provide some background in the introduction section of their studies. Press releases may offer some context, but keep in mind that the aim of the press release is to promote the study. Press releases may ignore previous evidence if it doesn’t support the validity of the research they’re selling.
When a medical journal flags a study as noteworthy, it will sometimes pair the study with an editorial or commentary, and these opinion pieces can be valuable sources of contextual information. That’s a good place to start, but it’s never a place to stop since commentaries are usually the opinion of just one or two people.
Medical journals also are increasingly aware that their audience extends beyond doctors and researchers. Some make an effort to quickly provide some contextual information about the study they’re presenting. The journal Pediatrics is an example. They post a little blue box at the top of each study letting readers know what came before and what the study adds. It looked like this on a recent study of background television exposure in young children:
Other sources you can use to find out the context of a study include PubMed, the searchable database of medical literature. Searching with a couple of key terms can help you find other recent studies on the same topics you’re covering, or you can look at the references of the study you’re covering for previous studies. Keep in mind that publishers may exclude studies that do not “fit” with their results, whether because they conflict or because they simply weren’t aware of those other studies.
PubMed also helps you quickly find research reviews, which summarize the body of literature available on a given question. To filter the reviews from your PubMed search, check “Systematic Reviews” under “Article Types.” It also may be helpful to interview the author of a recent review since they’re likely to be up to speed on the latest thinking on the subject you’re interested in.
The Cochrane Collaboration is another source of in-depth reviews on medical topics. You get free access to the entire Cochrane library as a benefit of AHCJ membership. Read more about how to sign up here.