Scientific Quality of Health-Related Articles in Specialty Cannabis and General Newspapers in San Francisco

Halvorson, Ryan T; Stewart, Christopher C.; Thakur, Aishwarya; Glantz, Stanton A.

doi:10.1080/10810730.2018.1534906

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One study examined the label accuracy of cannabidiol products sold online (Bonn-Miller et al 2017 ), while others have evaluated the accuracy of cannabis claims found on popular websites (Sperry 2018 ), and information specific to cannabis addiction (Khazaal et al 2008 ). Other studies have reviewed the quality of cannabis information published in magazines and newspapers (Halvorson et al 2018 ; Montané et al 2005 ). In general, the authors of these aforementioned studies concluded that the quality of cannabis information were often of very poor quality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis for pain: a cross-sectional survey of the patient information quality on the Internet

Dzisiak

Saini

2021

J Cannabis Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Cannabis has increasingly become an alternative treatment for chronic pain, however, there is evidence of concomitant negative health effects with its long-term usage. Patients contemplating cannabis use for pain relief commonly see information online but may not be able to identify trustworthy and accurate sources, therefore, it is imperative that healthcare practitioners play a role in assisting them in discerning the quality of information. The present study assesses the quality of web-based consumer health information available at the intersection of cannabis and pain. Methods A cross-sectional quality assessment of website information was conducted. Three countries were searched on Google: Canada, the Netherlands, and the USA. The first 3 pages of generated websites were used in each of the 9 searches. Eligible websites contained cannabis consumer health information for pain treatment. Only English-language websites were included. Encyclopedias (i.e. Wikipedia), forums, academic journals, general news websites, major e-commerce websites, websites not publicly available, books, and video platforms were excluded. Information presented on eligible websites were assessed using the DISCERN instrument. The DISCERN instrument consists of three sections, the first focusing on the reliability of the publication, the second investigating individual aspects of the publication, and the third providing an overall averaged score. Results Of 270 websites identified across searches, 216 were duplicates, and 18 were excluded based on eligibility criteria, resulting in 36 eligible websites. The average summed DISCERN score was 48.85 out of 75.00 (SD = 8.13), and the average overall score (question 16) was 3.10 out of 5.00 (SD = 0.62). These overall scores were calculated from combining the scores for questions 1 through 15 in the DISCERN instrument for each website. Websites selling cannabis products/services scored the lowest, while health portals scored the highest. Conclusion These findings indicate that online cannabis consumer health information for the treatment/management of pain presents biases to readers. These biases included websites: (1) selectively citing studies that supported the benefits associated with cannabis use, while neglecting to mention those discussing its risks, and (2) promoting cannabis as “natural” with the implication that this equated to “safe”. Healthcare providers should be involved in the guidance of patients’ seeking and use of online information on this topic.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cannabis for pain: a cross-sectional survey of the patient information quality on the Internet

Dzisiak

Saini

2021

J Cannabis Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We use “units” here since some samples include content besides news reports, such as non-news websites, 28 or include health news that is not news reports about the effects of health interventions, for example news features 29 or news reports about the effects of exposures, such as recreational cannabis (as opposed to medical cannabis). 30 …”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only one tool was used in >4 of the 44 studies included in the qualitative summary: the Index of Scientific Quality, which was used in seven studies (16%). 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 – 36 However, even more studies used tools that were to some extent, directly or indirectly, based on the criteria developed by Moynihan et al . 37 This includes the four studies that used the Media Doctor Australia tool 12 , 13 , 38 , 39 and the 3 studies that used the Health News Review tool, 25 , 26 , 40 which was based on the Media Doctor Australia tool.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It was used in seven studies (16%). 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 – 36 However, a larger number of studies used tools directly or indirectly based on the criteria developed by Moynihan et al , 37 including the four studies that used the Media Doctor Australia tool 12 , 13 , 38 , 39 and the three studies that used the Health News Review tool. 25 , 26 , 40…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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 inappropriate 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 qualitative summary, 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.

show abstract

“…Only one tool was used in >4 of the 44 studies included in the qualitative summary: the Index of Scientific Quality, which was used in seven studies (16%). 31,33,34,[36][37][38][39] However, even more studies used tools that were to some extent, directly or indirectly, based on the criteria developed by Moynihan et al 40 This includes the four studies that used the Media Doctor Australia tool 12,13,41,42 and the 3 studies that used the Health News Review tool, 28,29,43 which was based on the Media Doctor Australia tool. 28 Two studies used two separate tools.…”

Section: Toolsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Scientific Quality of Health-Related Articles in Specialty Cannabis and General Newspapers in San Francisco

Cited by 9 publications

References 24 publications

Cannabis for pain: a cross-sectional survey of the patient information quality on the Internet

Cannabis for pain: a cross-sectional survey of the patient information quality on the Internet

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

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About