Online health information – what the newspapers tell their readers: a systematic content analysis

Abstract

BackgroundThis study investigated the nature of newspaper reporting about online health information in the UK and US. Internet users frequently search for health information online, although the accuracy of the information retrieved varies greatly and can be misleading. Newspapers have the potential to influence public health behaviours, but information has been lacking in relation to how newspapers portray online health information to their readers.MethodsThe newspaper database Nexis®UK was searched for articles published from 2003 – 2012 relating to online health information. Systematic content analysis of articles published in the highest circulation newspapers in the UK and US was performed. A second researcher coded a 10% sample to establish inter-rater reliability of coding.ResultsIn total, 161 newspaper articles were included in the analysis. Publication was most frequent in 2003, 2008 and 2009, which coincided with global threats to public health. UK broadsheet newspapers were significantly more likely to cover online health information than UK tabloid newspapers (p = 0.04) and only one article was identified in US tabloid newspapers. Articles most frequently appeared in health sections. Among the 79 articles that linked online health information to specific diseases or health topics, diabetes was the most frequently mentioned disease, cancer the commonest group of diseases and sexual health the most frequent health topic. Articles portrayed benefits of obtaining online health information more frequently than risks. Quotations from health professionals portrayed mixed opinions regarding public access to online health information. 108 (67.1%) articles directed readers to specific health-related web sites. 135 (83.9%) articles were rated as having balanced judgement and 76 (47.2%) were judged as having excellent quality reporting. No difference was found in the quality of reporting between UK and US articles.ConclusionsNewspaper coverage of online health information was low during the 10-year period 2003 to 2012. Journalists tended to emphasise the benefits and understate the risks of online health information and the quality of reporting varied considerably. Newspapers directed readers to sources of online health information during global epidemics although, as most articles appeared in the health sections of broadsheet newspapers, coverage was limited to a relatively small readership.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1316) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cancer News Coverage in Korean Newspapers: An Analytic Study in Terms of Cancer Awareness

“…For instance, the media report about treatment more frequently than about prevention [5,6] and often exaggerate the benefit of technological advances [7,8]; furthermore, relatively few articles tend to be published that present in-depth information about cost, quality Content Analysis of News About Cancer of evidence, potential risks, and alternative options for treatment [9,10]. By frequently highlighting certain medical providers and new drugs, the news media may deliver unrealistic expectations for a complete cure and prompt individuals to seek specific services for themselves [11][12][13]. Although content of this nature might be considered to be helpful for cancer care because it provides detailed information about healthcare resources, it can also cause problems.…”

30+ years of media analysis of relevance to chronic disease: a scoping review

“…Nineteen studies compared the amount of news coverage received by different health topics (e.g. [68,[76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85][86]) and/or whether the amount of news coverage received was proportionate to the burden of the problem (e.g. [79,[87][88][89][90][91][92]).…”

How Should Clinicians Engage With Online Health Information?

“…1 However, concerns have been raised about people's abilities to effectively search for information, comprehend what they find, and cope with the volume and variable quality of information. [2][3][4] Moreover, the accuracy of internet health information varies greatly. For example, in a study of the quality of online information on mental health, two-thirds of the websites had content rated as good quality using DISCERN, an objective, validated instrument for measuring the quality of written health information.…”

“…The coders rated 47% of the articles as excellent quality, 33% as average or good quality, and 20% as poor quality. 2 Yet another study examined information on dengue, a significant health problem in developing countries. 6 Among the websites examined, 46% were evaluated as excellent, 15% as good, 18% as fair, 9% as poor, and 11% as very poor using an objective measure of quality.…”