Study: Good press releases contribute to good health journalism

Thanks to Gary Schwitzer for drawing attention to a study, published in BMJ, which analyzes the impact medical journal press releases have on actual press coverage of studies.

The authors begin with a somewhat gratifying hypothesis, writing that “Although it is easy to blame journalists for poor quality reporting, problems with coverage could begin with the journalists’ sources,” and positing that difficult-to-decipher studies and misleading press releases could lead to low-caliber health reporting.

They looked at 100 studies from five major journals, as well as a sample of 348 news stories based on those studies. In general they found that higher-quality press releases led to higher-quality coverage. Unfortunately, they also found that the inverse was true. Here’s an excerpt from the “Discussion” subheading (also highlighted by Schwitzer).

…Higher quality press releases issued by medical journals were associated with higher quality reporting in subsequent newspaper stories. In fact, the influence of press releases on subsequent newspaper stories was generally stronger than that of journal abstracts. Fundamental information such as absolute risks, harms, and limitations was more likely to be reported in newspaper stories when this information appeared in a medical journal press release than when it was missing from the press release or if no press release was issued. Furthermore, our data suggest that poor quality press releases were worse than no press release being issued: fundamental information was less likely to be reported in newspaper stories when it was missing from the press release than where no press release was issued at all.

Reporters looking for a Health News Review-style “how do I ensure my story clears their quality bar?” checklist can just scroll down to the “Quality Assessment” subheading. For the record, the metrics found there apply equally well to the PR professionals who write the releases.

PLoS Medicine article advocates using legal system to stem ghostwriting

An essay published by PLoS Medicine makes the case that the “guest” authors of ghostwritten articles – typically academic researchers who provide little or no input – in medical journals should be held legally liable for damages or deaths caused by the drug or device that is the subject of articles they sign their names to.

The article points out that ghostwriting “openly infringes academic standards and … contributes to fraud” but that journal editors have been ineffective at putting a stop to it.

We argue that when an injured patient’s physician directly or indirectly relied upon a journal article containing false/manipulated safety and efficacy data, then pursuant to the legal authority outlined above, the authors of that article, including guest authors, are legally liable for patient injuries and could be named as defendants.

Xavier Bosch, Bijan Esfandiari and Leemon McHenry, authors of the PLoS Medicine piece, even endorse the theory that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) could be used, something that was mentioned in an article last year. Other recourses the authors recommend include the False Claims Act and the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Journalists should learn about study design, evidence-based medicine

Earlier this month I saw on Twitter one of those collisions between journalism and wonkdom. Maybe “collision” isn’t the right word; maybe it was some kind of interspecies mating dance. Anyhow, the gist of it was that we, journalists, don’t know how to evaluate evidence and someone should step in and teach us.

So I stuck in my two cents (or, rather, my two tweets) pointing out that, yes, there is a need for training and, yes, there are places to get the training, including through AHCJ. (See more after the Twitter discussion.)

So, before I remind you about those resources, just a word on why we need them:

On the surface, it may seem that AHCJ houses two kinds of health journalists – those of us who report on the science side of things, and those of us who are more in a policy world. But some of us do both – and research/evidence/evaluating science are also becoming an increasing part of the underpinnings of policy beats. Value-based purchasing, comparative effectiveness, benefits of screening/prevention, quality measures, outcome research … these are all part of the health care reform story.

That doesn’t mean all of us must become  economists/biologists/epidemiologists/statisticians. Old fashioned reporting – including calling experts who can help us make sense of numbers  – is certainly part of the job. But it’s also good to have some sense of what the experts are talking about, what these numbers mean. Why a study on N=16 patients doesn’t really tell us that much. What do we mean by “endpoints,” “outcomes,” “progression?” What’s relative versus absolute risk? Etc.

So for those of you who haven’t  taken a cyber-stroll through the AHCJ website, take five minutes and check out tip sheets, resources and slim guides. Of particular relevance to this discussion is Gary Schwitzer’s slim guide, “Covering Medical Research.”  There’s also a tip sheet/PDF presentation by Schwitzer on “Understanding studies.” His Health News Watchdog blog is also useful.

Reporting on Health (at USC) also has a lot of useful resources, and this essay “Tricks of the Trade: Finding Nuggets in the River of Medical Studies” is a good entry point to understanding data. It’s by Lauran Neergard, a longtime Associated Press health and science writer.

In addition,  there’s a course called Medicine in the Media, sponsored by National Institute of Health’s Office of Medical Applications of Research.  It’s free, but you have to apply, and there’s not room for everyone.  I know of at least one recent summer (the only one I, personally, could have managed the timing!) it wasn’t given, and as of now, there’s nothing on the website about this year. But you can sign up for email notifications, so if you are interested, do that now because the deadline in past years has been early.

The Poynter Institute has some online modules, too. Lots of the focus is on new media and writing and story telling, but there is a math basics refresher for those of you who haven’t taken it since the SATs, some online Excel training, and a unit on reporting on nonprofits