Group items tagged

The quest for balance in a health news story can fail before the first sentence if the headline isn't appropriately calibrated. With that in mind, I looked at news stories and releases that we reviewed over the past month and compared the headline message with that of the study on which the news is based. About a third of news story headlines and a quarter of news release headlines either misstated the results or went beyond what the research could support.

A headline in The New York Times today reads "In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda." Is it true? The story itself provides hints that the headline is misleading, and likely to damage the image of the SNAP program and its beneficiaries. This is dangerous, considering that many readers look at clickbaity headlines, like the NYTimes one, but don't read stories. SNAP households aren't different than the rest of households. Most Americans buy and drink way too much soda and, as a result, obesity and Type II diabetes have reached epidemic levels. The story says that households that receive food stamps spend 9.3% of their grocery budget on soft drinks, while families in general spend 7.1%. This is one of those cases when reporting just percentages, and not taking into account other variables, such as total spending in groceries, sounds fishy.

We all do it in journalism. We are taught to write a headline that a) captures what the story is about, and b) captures the reader's attention. Nothing wrong with that. Where the problem comes in is if the headline misleads or misinforms. And, as is so often the case with healthcare topics, that sort of disconnect has the potential to do more harm than good.

What do you take from this hypothetical headline: "Reading the Research Digest blog is associated with higher intelligence"? How about this one: "Reading this blog might increase your intelligence"? According to science writing guides like HealthNewsReview.org, taking the first correlational finding from a peer-reviewed article and reporting it for the public using the second wording, implying causation, is a sin of exaggeration, making a relationship appear more causal than the evidence suggests.

almost all the stories I looked at emphasized that "1 in 10 pregnant women" with Zika gave birth to babies with birth defects.But how many actual women does the "1 in 10" figure represent? How many actual babies with birth defects?You have to wade far down into all of these stories to find the numbers, whereas NPR puts them right in its headline:51 Babies Born With Zika-Related Birth Defects In The U.S. Last YearThe fact that 1 in 10 women with Zika have babies with birth defects is accurate but not nearly as informative as it could be.And when communicating to a general audience, it's misleading to the point of scaremongering to make the "1 in 10" headline the take-home message from the study.

Some great quotes in this piece! The language of politics warps our democracy again and again, as in this tax calculation. The media must unpack statistics Last week, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and the Health Foundation published a report on funding for health and social care. One figure from the report was repeated across the headlines. For the NHS to stay afloat, it would require "£2,000 in tax from every household". Shocking stuff!If you're sitting at a bar with a group of friends and Bill Gates walks in, the average wealth of everyone in the room makes you all millionaires. But if you try to buy the most expensive bottle of champagne in the place, your debit card will still be declined. The issue to be addressed, and one to which there is no fully correct answer, is how we can put numbers into a context that enables people to make informed choices. Big numbers are hard to conceptualise - most of us have no intuitive understanding of what £56bn even looks like.

Another example of news coverage over-stating the causal relationship between two things that research has demonstrated have some *association*. Good discussion of the particular headlines.

Ocean acidification is an inevitable consequence of increasing carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. That's a matter of fact. We don't know exactly what will happen to complex marine ecosystems when faced with the additional stress of falling pH, but we do know those changes are happening and that they won't be good news.Freedom of speech, and of the press, is, of course, precious. Yet that freedom also brings responsibility. The Editors' Code of Practice - which IPSO says it upholds - requires the "highest professional standards". This includes taking care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information or images, including headlines not supported by the text. In addition, a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published.Is this just an honest opinion, a statement of fact or wilfully misleading and clever rhetoric? That depends on what is meant by "evidence". If it means quality research carried out by scientists with expertise in the field, the statement is factually incorrect. But if evidence includes anything said by non-experts, such as Delingpole, then that's an increase, right?

"we pushed back against a misleading news release from Yale University that ran with the headline, "Yale researchers discover underlying cause of myeloma." The release claimed that the researchers identified "what causes a third of all myelomas," describing a faulty immune system response to compounds known as lysolipids as the culprit. But that characterization was wrong. First off, the research only demonstrated an association between lysolipids and this cancer - they didn't prove that one caused the other. And far from applying to a third of myeloma patients, the findings applied only to a tiny group of patients "

'Killer facts' are those punchy, memorable, headline-grabbing statistics that make reports special. They cut through the technicalities to fire people up about changing the world. They are picked up and repeated endlessly by the media and politicians. They are known as 'killer' facts because if they are really effective, they 'kill off' the opposition's arguments. The right killer fact can have more impact than the whole of a well-researched report.

Interesting perspective on communicating evidence. With controversy about science communication, facts and alternative facts hitting the headlines recently, I've been having a number of conversations with colleagues from all over the world about why science seems to be losing in the current war on reason. This isn't in the usual fringe battle fronts like creationism or flat-Earthers. It's on topics deep behind our lines, in areas like whether climate change exists or not, how many people were present at a given time at a given place and whether one man with a questionable grasp on reality should be the only source people get their news from.

Interesting discussion of why headlines like this one "85% accurate" for the detection of stomach cancer" about an experimental breath test are problematic (because some people who don't have the condition get diagnosed with it, and they can miss people who genuinely do have the condition!). Good example using pregnancy tests as an infographic.

"Fenofibrate may reduce heart disease risk in some patients with type 2 diabetes" The release goes on to suggest that among patients with type 2 diabetes who also had high levels of triglycerides and low levels of "good" cholesterol, the drug lowered the risk of cardiovascular events compared with placebo. Sounds like it might be time to ask your doctor about the benefits of fenofibrate, right? Before you schedule that appointment, you might want to consider this detail that wan't included in the news release: The findings of benefit came from a small group of patients within a larger study whose results had previously been reported. And that larger study, known as ACCORD, found no overall cardiovascular benefit among patients treated with fenofibrate.