Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Abstract

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding ineligible criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies. Results We included 44 primary studies in the review, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty). Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public’s ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

Online information in Spanish on probiotics, yoghurt, kefir, kombucha, fibre and prebiotics: an analysis of the quality of information and the certainty of the evidence supporting health claims

“…The first SR of the quality of information on health interventions in traditional media outlets and online resources also found room for improvement as regards health news 59. However, nutrition-related information is especially prone to poor quality and may contribute to public misconceptions about dietary strategies targeting the gut microbiome and health 80–84.…”

“…Another way to improve that situation might be to promote critical thinking among the public. In other words, it might be better to treat the effects of the current overabundance of information than to prevent it, since prevention is an almost impossible task, with exaggerated scientific findings and discoveries always attracting those who produce and recirculate information 59 92. In that regard, we present our suggested 10 criteria for quality of information, aimed at three different groups.…”

“…MB and GC separately analysed the quality of online information based on whether it met the following 10 criteria. The selection of said criteria was based on the only available SR of the quality of information on health interventions59 and two other relevant papers 60 61. The criteria used were: (1) provides references or links to scientific publications; (2) explains the conclusions of scientific publications; (3) quantifies relative effects; (4) quantifies absolute effects; (5) acknowledges some research limitations (eg, preliminary results, small studies, conflicts of interests and differing results between studies); (6) generally discusses certainty of evidence (eg, aligning wording depending on whether the studies are observational or experimental)62; (7) reports potential harms; (8) reports on available alternatives; (9) discusses intervention costs; and (10) does not make arguments based on personal experiences or anecdotes.…”

Interventions to improve media coverage of medical research: a codesigned feasibility and acceptability study with Australian journalists

“…Journalists who report on health have a very difficult role, often translating complex science under deadlines into news that the public can understand 1. Despite many initiatives in this area,2 3 journalists generally receive no routine training in how to interpret or present medical research,4 5 and studies have found the quality of media coverage of medicine is often poor globally 6. Research has shown that media stories frequently emphasise the potential benefits of health interventions and under-report the harms, ignore important conflicts of interest, report numbers in misleading ways and frequently fail to report important study limitations 6 7…”

“…Despite many initiatives in this area,2 3 journalists generally receive no routine training in how to interpret or present medical research,4 5 and studies have found the quality of media coverage of medicine is often poor globally 6. Research has shown that media stories frequently emphasise the potential benefits of health interventions and under-report the harms, ignore important conflicts of interest, report numbers in misleading ways and frequently fail to report important study limitations 6 78 9 quality medical reporting is essential to ensure accurate portrayal of health and science information, which in turn can shape the health of the population 10.…”