The mammography screening controversy: who and what is heard in the press?

Abstract

The objective of this project was to analyze newspaper coverage of the January 2000 meta-analysis by Gotzsche and Olsen, "Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justified?" [Lancet 355 (2000) 129]. A content analysis was performed on a comprehensive set of newspaper clippings from the UK during the 2 weeks following publication of the Lancet article. The original authors were most quoted in Wave 1 (the first weekend); the screening programme was most quoted in Wave 2 (week 2). Screening programme description, and the "quality" of the Lancet article dominated Wave 1; patient testimonials increased in Wave 2. Newspaper articles were structured as debates between experts and advocates, thereby enhancing polarisation of opinion. We suggest this is counter-productive to evidence-based patient choice and public involvement in decision-making. Medical journals' and charities' press releases that begin to include discussion of uncertainty inherent in medical technologies can contribute to evidence-based public deliberation.

Stakeholders’ positions in the breast screening debate, and media coverage of the debate: a qualitative study

“…This is the first study of its kind to identify positions of a sample of major official and charity bodies from their websites, and to assess reporting of the screening debate in a purposively-selected sample of newspapers. Previous research has focused on press coverage of key milestones in the breast screening debate and has thus analysed shorter time periods or non-UK sources (Holmes-Rovner and Charles 2003;Steele and Mebane 2005). In terms of internet coverage, our findings about the unbalanced nature of information on stakeholders' websites concurs with the only previous study we are aware of that examined internet coverage about breast screening (Jorgensen and Gotzsche 2004).…”

“…While laywomen are likely to gather information about breast screening from the people around them, and of course health professionals with whom they come into contact, publicly available information (for example, on websites and in other media) is also likely to play an important role in shaping their understandings. Although studies have looked at how breast screening is covered in the media (Holmes-Rovner and Charles 2003;Steele and Mebane 2005) and the effects of celebrity breast cancer cases on screening uptake (Yanovitzky and Blitz 2000;Chapman et al 2005), little is known about how the debate itself, and the key issues within it, has been presented.…”

Predictors of Perceived Ambiguity About Cancer Prevention Recommendations: Sociodemographic Factors and Mass Media Exposures

“…For example, the extent and content of the mass media’s coverage of different diseases have varied historically in response to such factors as scientific controversies (Holmes-Rovner & Charles, 2003) and the health experiences of prominent celebrities. Recent examples include debates over interventions such as antioxidant vitamins and aspirin for cancer prevention (Rubin, 2005), and the televised colon cancer screening of Katie Couric (Cram et al, 2003).…”

Perceived Ambiguity about Screening Mammography Recommendations: Association with Future Mammography Uptake and Perceptions

“…These differences may reflect underlying variability in still other factors [e.g., cultural values concerning screening and prevention (20,58,59), mass media exposure (60)(61)(62), and health-related numeracy (63)], which may alter perceptions or responses to ambiguity. Our study suggests additional complexities regarding the outcomes of ambiguity perceptions.…”