Factors associated with online media attention to research: a cohort study of articles evaluating cancer treatments

Abstract

BackgroundNew metrics have been developed to assess the impact of research and provide an indication of online media attention and data dissemination. We aimed to describe online media attention of articles evaluating cancer treatments and identify the factors associated with high online media attention.MethodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE via PubMed on March 1, 2015 for articles published during the first 6 months of 2014 in oncology and medical journals with a diverse range of impact factors, from 3.9 to 54.4, and selected a sample of articles evaluating a cancer treatment regardless of study design. Altmetric Explorer was used to identify online media attention of selected articles. The primary outcome was media attention an article received online as measured by Altmetric score (i.e., number of mentions in online news outlets, science blogs and social media). Regression analysis was performed to investigate the factors associated with high media attention, and regression coefficients represent the logarithm of ratio of mean (RoM) values of Altmetric score per unit change in the covariate.ResultsAmong 792 articles, 218 (27.5%) received no online media attention (Altmetric score = 0). The median [Q1–Q3] Altmetric score was 2.0 [0.0–8.0], range 0.0–428.0. On multivariate analysis, factors associated with high Altmetric score were presence of a press release (RoM = 10.14, 95%CI [4.91–20.96]), open access to the article (RoM = 1.48, 95%CI [1.02–2.16]), and journal impact factor (RoM = 1.10, 95%CI [1.07–1.12]. As compared with observational studies, systematic reviews were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 1.46, 95%CI [0.74–2.86]; P = 0.27), nor were RCTs (RoM = 0.65, 95%CI [0.41–1.02]; P = 0.059) and phase I/II non-RCTs (RoM = 0.58, 95%CI [0.33–1.05]; P = 0.07). The articles with abstract conclusions favouring study treatments were not associated with high Altmetric score (RoM = 0.97, 95%CI [0.60–1.58]; P = 0.91).ConclusionsMost important factors associated with high online media attention were the presence of a press release and the journal impact factor. There was no evidence that study design with high level of evidence and type of abstract conclusion were associated with high online media attention.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41073-017-0033-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cancer In The News: Bias And Quality In Media Reporting Of Cancer Research

“…We found a majority of online news articles reporting on peer-reviewed papers, however this may be partly explained by our exclusion of more general news articles that did not report on a specified study. Previous studies have highlighted inconsistent quality and accuracy of science news reporting practices at multiple levels, ranging from institutional press releases to news pieces [16,17,21], and found that study types with poorer methodology gain more media coverage than research based on stronger evidence [33][34][35]. Our analysis of reporting quality and study type distribution in online news is consistent with previous evidence of poor quality reporting by broadsheet news sources [19,20,23] and a bias towards primary research [6,9,46,47].…”

“…Nevertheless, evidence of a skew towards lower quality studies in the news [33] indicates that publication bias might be an underlying factor in newspapers favouring research with poorer methodology. Similar trends have been observed in other publications, with observational studies on average receiving more attention than both systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) [34,35]. This is problematic as the features thus attracting media attention are often a key driver of hype, confusion and false expectations.…”

“…However, there is limited literature on content bias in science news reporting. Quality and style have been shown to vary across news outlets [16,17], but even the largest newspapers with the best overall standards tend to cover more studies with poorer methodology and observational studies over RCTs or systematic reviews [33][34][35].…”

Making headlines: An analysis of US government-funded cancer research mentioned in online media

“…For Researchers have found that online media attention to scientific articles about cancer treatment correlates positively with the presence of media outreach. [38,39] Thus, unsurprisingly the top 10 articles receiving the most media attention were published in journals that engage in outreach and dissemination activities. For example, four of the articles appear in the JAMA Network.…”

Recommending research articles to consumers of online vaccination information

“…Research communications in news and social media face several challenges. Studies with fewer participants and of lower methodological rigour are more common in news media [13,32], and research from authors with conflicts of interest tend to receive more attention in news and social media [12]. As many as half of all news reports manipulate or sensationalise study results to emphasise the benefits of experimental treatments [37].…”