Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study.
BMJ. 2012;344:d8164
Authors: Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Andrews A, Stukel TA
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether the quality of press releases issued by medical journals can influence the quality of associated newspaper stories. Design Retrospective cohort study of medical journal press releases and associated news stories.
SETTING: We reviewed consecutive issues (going backwards from January 2009) of five major medical journals (Annals of Internal Medicine, BMJ, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, JAMA, and New England Journal of Medicine) to identify the first 100 original research articles with quantifiable outcomes and that had generated any newspaper coverage (unique stories ≥100 words long). We identified 759 associated newspaper stories using Lexis Nexis and Factiva searches, and 68 journal press releases using Eurekalert and journal website searches. Two independent research assistants assessed the quality of journal articles, press releases, and a stratified random sample of associated newspaper stories (n=343) by using a structured coding scheme for the presence of specific quality measures: basic study facts, quantification of the main result, harms, and limitations. Main outcome Proportion of newspaper stories with specific quality measures (adjusted for whether the quality measure was present in the journal article’s abstract or editor note).
RESULTS: We recorded a median of three newspaper stories per journal article (range 1-72). Of 343 stories analysed, 71% reported on articles for which medical journals had issued press releases. 9% of stories quantified the main result with absolute risks when this information was not in the press release, 53% did so when it was in the press release (relative risk 6.0, 95% confidence interval 2.3 to 15.4), and 20% when no press release was issued (2.2, 0.83 to 6.1). 133 (39%) stories reported on research describing beneficial interventions. 24% mentioned harms (or specifically declared no harms) when harms were not mentioned in the press release, 68% when mentioned in the press release (2.8, 1.1 to 7.4), and 36% when no press release was issued (1.5, 0.49 to 4.4). 256 (75%) stories reported on research with important limitations. 16% reported any limitations when limitations were not mentioned in the press release, 48% when mentioned in the press release (3.0, 1.5 to 6.2), and 21% if no press release was issued (1.3, 0.50 to 3.6).
CONCLUSION: High quality press releases issued by medical journals seem to make the quality of associated newspaper stories better, whereas low quality press releases might make them worse.
Although many clinicians feel they already use shared decision making, research shows a perception-reality gap. A M Stiggelbout and colleagues discuss why it is important and highlight some best practices.
Understanding recent trends in incidence of invasive breast cancer in Norway: age-period-cohort analysis based on registry data on mammography screening and hormone treatment use.
BMJ. 2012;344:e299
Authors: Weedon-Fekjær H, Bakken K, Vatten LJ, Tretli S
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the separate contributions of menopausal hormone treatment and mammography screening activities on trends in incidence of invasive breast cancer between 1987 and 2008.
DESIGN: Population study using aggregated data analysed by an extended age-period-cohort model.
SETTING: Norway. Population Norwegian women aged 30-90 between 1987 and 2008, including 50 102 newly diagnosed cases of invasive breast cancer. Main outcomes measures Attributable proportions of mammography screening and hormone treatment to recent incidence of invasive breast cancer, and the remaining variation in incidence after adjustment for mammography screening and hormone treatment.
RESULTS: The incidence of invasive breast cancer in Norway increased steadily until 2002, levelled off, and then declined from 2006. All non-linear changes in incidence were explained by use of hormone treatment and mammography screening activities, with about similar contributions of each factor. In 2002, when the incidence among women aged 50-69 was highest, an estimated 23% of the cases in that age group could be attributed to mammography screening and 27% to use of hormone treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Changes in incidence trends of invasive breast cancer since the early 1990s may be fully attributed to mammography screening and hormone treatment, with about similar contributions of each factor.
PMID: 22290099 [PubMed - in process]
PubMed requires this notice of disclaimer is present.
