Causal claims about correlations reduced in press releases following academic study of health news.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7236584 | BioStudies |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies
Similar Datasets
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Exaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>Using quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature.<h4>Conclusions</h4>For health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases.
| S-EPMC5158314 | BioStudies
Project description:Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover, such press release exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Methods: Here we tested the replicability of these findings in a new cohort of news and press releases based on research in UK universities in 2014 and 2015. Press releases and news were compared to their associated peer-reviewed articles to define exaggeration in advice, causal claims and human inference from non-human studies. Results: We found that the association between news and press releases did not replicate for advice exaggeration, while this association did replicate for causal claims and human inference from non-human studies. There was no evidence for higher news uptake for exaggerated press releases, consistent with previous results. Base exaggeration rates were lower for human inference from non-human studies, possibly reflecting the Concordat on Openness on Animal Research in the UK. Conclusions: Overall, the picture remains that the strength of news statements is normally associated with the strength of press release statements, and without evidence that exaggerated statements get significantly more news.
| S-EPMC6833989 | BioStudies
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To identify the source (press releases or news) of distortions, exaggerations, or changes to the main conclusions drawn from research that could potentially influence a reader's health related behaviour.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective quantitative content analysis.<h4>Setting</h4>Journal articles, press releases, and related news, with accompanying simulations.<h4>Sample</h4>Press releases (n = 462) on biomedical and health related science issued by 20 leading UK universities in 2011, alongside their associated peer reviewed research papers and news stories (n = 668).<h4>Main outcome measures</h4>Advice to readers to change behaviour, causal statements drawn from correlational research, and inference to humans from animal research that went beyond those in the associated peer reviewed papers.<h4>Results</h4>40% (95% confidence interval 33% to 46%) of the press releases contained exaggerated advice, 33% (26% to 40%) contained exaggerated causal claims, and 36% (28% to 46%) contained exaggerated inference to humans from animal research. When press releases contained such exaggeration, 58% (95% confidence interval 48% to 68%), 81% (70% to 93%), and 86% (77% to 95%) of news stories, respectively, contained similar exaggeration, compared with exaggeration rates of 17% (10% to 24%), 18% (9% to 27%), and 10% (0% to 19%) in news when the press releases were not exaggerated. Odds ratios for each category of analysis were 6.5 (95% confidence interval 3.5 to 12), 20 (7.6 to 51), and 56 (15 to 211). At the same time, there was little evidence that exaggeration in press releases increased the uptake of news.<h4>Conclusions</h4>Exaggeration in news is strongly associated with exaggeration in press releases. Improving the accuracy of academic press releases could represent a key opportunity for reducing misleading health related news.
| S-EPMC4262123 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND:Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment between causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not interested in communicating caution). METHODS:We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news: (a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious for correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The 'participants' were press releases on health-related topics (N?=?312; control?=?89, claim alignment?=?64, causality statement?=?79, both?=?80) from nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims, caveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N?=?2257), news uptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious statements). RESULTS:News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR?=?1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR?=?1.3 to 4.4). News claims also followed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR?=?0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR?=?1.4 to 5.7). The same was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR?=?0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There was no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR?=?0.7 to 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR?=?0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR?=?0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs 52%, OR?=?1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and caveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR?=?1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively). CONCLUSIONS:News claims-even headlines-can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and explicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from AT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press releases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across conditions. TRIAL REGISTRATION:ISRCTN10492618 (20 August 2015).
| S-EPMC6521363 | BioStudies
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Media frequently draws inappropriate causal statements from observational studies. We analyzed the reporting of study results in the Medical News section of the German medical journal Deutsches Ärzteblatt (DÄ).<h4>Methods</h4>Study design: Retrospective quantitative content analysis of randomly selected news reports and related original journal articles and press releases. A medical news report was selected if headlines comprised at least two linked variables. Two raters independently categorized the headline and text of each news report, conclusions of the abstract and full text of the related journal article, and the press release. The assessment instrument comprised five categories from 'neutral' to 'unconditionally causal'. Outcome measures: degree of matching between 1) news headlines and conclusions of the journal article, 2) headlines and text of news reports, 3) text and conclusions, and 4) headlines and press releases. We analyzed whether news headlines rated as unconditionally causal based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).<h4>Results</h4>One-thousand eighty-seven medical news reports were published between April 2015 and May 2016. The final random sample comprised 176 news reports and 100 related press releases. Degree of matching: 1) 45% (79/176) for news headlines and journal article conclusions, 2) 55% (97/176) for headlines and text, 3) 53% (93/176) for text and conclusions, and 4) 41% (41/100) for headlines and press releases. Exaggerations were found in 45% (80/176) of the headlines compared to the conclusions of the related journal article. Sixty-five of 137 unconditionally causal statements of the news headlines were phrased more weakly in the subsequent news text body. Only 52 of 137 headlines (38%) categorized as unconditionally causal reported RCTs.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Reporting of medical news in the DÄ medical journal is misleading. Most headlines that imply causal associations were not based on RCTs. Medical journalists should follow standards of reporting scientific study results.
| S-EPMC5933791 | BioStudies
Project description:Background This research is an investigation into the role of expert quotes in health news, specifically whether news articles containing a quote from an independent expert are less often exaggerated than articles without such a quote. Methods Retrospective quantitative content analysis of journal articles, press releases, and associated news articles was performed. The investigated sample are press releases on peer-reviewed health research and the associated research articles and news stories. Our sample consisted of 462 press releases and 668 news articles from the UK (2011) and 129 press releases and 185 news articles from The Netherlands (2015). We hand-coded all journal articles, press releases and news articles for correlational claims, using a well-tested codebook. The main outcome measures are types of sources that were quoted and exaggeration of correlational claims. We used counts, 2x2 tables and odds ratios to assess the relationship between presence of quotes and exaggeration of the causal claim. Results Overall, 99.1% of the UK press releases and 84.5% of the Dutch press releases contain at least one quote. For the associated news articles these percentages are: 88.6% in the UK and 69.7% in the Netherlands. Authors of the study are most often quoted and only 7.5% of UK and 7.0% of Dutch news articles contained a new quote by an expert source, i.e. one not provided by the press release. The relative odds that an article without an external expert quote contains an exaggeration of causality is 2.6. Conclusions The number of articles containing a quote from an independent expert is low, but articles that cite an external expert do contain less exaggeration.
| S-EPMC6619368 | BioStudies
Project description:<h4>Background</h4>Previous studies indicate that in published reports, trial results can be distorted by the use of "spin" (specific reporting strategies, intentional or unintentional, emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment). We aimed to (1) evaluate the presence of "spin" in press releases and associated media coverage; and (2) evaluate whether findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on press releases and media coverage are misinterpreted.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We systematically searched for all press releases indexed in the EurekAlert! database between December 2009 and March 2010. Of the 498 press releases retrieved and screened, we included press releases for all two-arm, parallel-group RCTs (n?=?70). We obtained a copy of the scientific article to which the press release related and we systematically searched for related news items using Lexis Nexis. "Spin," defined as specific reporting strategies (intentional or unintentional) emphasizing the beneficial effect of the experimental treatment, was identified in 28 (40%) scientific article abstract conclusions and in 33 (47%) press releases. From bivariate and multivariable analysis assessing the journal type, funding source, sample size, type of treatment (drug or other), results of the primary outcomes (all nonstatistically significant versus other), author of the press release, and the presence of "spin" in the abstract conclusion, the only factor associated, with "spin" in the press release was "spin" in the article abstract conclusions (relative risk [RR] 5.6, [95% CI 2.8-11.1], p < 0.001). Findings of RCTs based on press releases were overestimated for 19 (27%) reports. News items were identified for 41 RCTs; 21 (51%) were reported with "spin," mainly the same type of "spin" as those identified in the press release and article abstract conclusion. Findings of RCTs based on the news item was overestimated for ten (24%) reports.<h4>Conclusion</h4>"Spin" was identified in about half of press releases and media coverage. In multivariable analysis, the main factor associated with "spin" in press releases was the presence of "spin" in the article abstract conclusion.
| S-EPMC3439420 | BioStudies
Project description:<h4>Objective</h4>To determine whether the quality of press releases issued by medical journals can influence the quality of associated newspaper stories.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study of medical journal press releases and associated news stories.<h4>Setting</h4>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.<h4>Main outcome</h4>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).<h4>Results</h4>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).<h4>Conclusion</h4>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.
| S-EPMC3267473 | BioStudies
Project description:BACKGROUND: Dietary supplement use is increasing despite lack of evidence of benefits, or evidence of harm. Press releases issued by the supplements industry might contribute to this situation by using 'spin' (strategies to hype or denigrate findings) to distort the results of clinical studies. We assessed press releases issued in response to publication of clinical studies on dietary supplements. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We analyzed 47 supplements industry press releases and 91 non-industry press releases and news stories, generated in response to 46 clinical studies of dietary supplements published between 1/1/2005 and 5/31/2013. The primary outcome was 'spin' content and direction. We also assessed disposition towards use of dietary supplements, reporting of study information, and dissemination of industry press releases. More supplements industry press releases (100%) contained 'spin' than non-industry media documents (55%, P<0.001). Hyping 'spin' scores were higher in industry than non-industry media documents for studies reporting benefit of supplements (median 'spin' score 3.3, 95% CI 1.0-5.5 vs 0.5, 0-1.0; P<0.001). Denigratory 'spin' scores were higher in industry than non-industry media documents for studies reporting no effect (6.0, 5.0-7.0 vs 0, 0-0; P<0.001) or harm (6.0, 5.5-7.5 vs 0, 0-0.5; P<0.001) from a supplement. Industry press releases advocated supplement use in response to >90% of studies that reported no benefit, or harm, of the supplement. Industry press releases less frequently reported study outcomes, sample size, and estimates of effect size than non-industry media documents (all P<0.001), particularly for studies that reported no benefit of supplements. Industry press releases were referenced by 148 news stories on the websites of 6 organizations that inform manufacturers, retailers and consumers of supplements. CONCLUSIONS: Dietary supplements industry press releases issued in response to clinical research findings are characterized by 'spin' that hypes results that are favourable to supplement use and denigrates results that are not.
| S-EPMC4081644 | BioStudies
Project description:OBJECTIVE:We sought to depict the topical, geospatial, and temporal diffusion of the 2015 North American Menopause Society position statement on the nonhormonal management of menopause-associated vasomotor symptoms released on September 21, 2015, and its associated press release from September 23, 2015. METHODS:Three data sources were used: online news articles, National Public Radio, and Twitter. For topical diffusion, we compared keywords and their frequencies among the position statement, press release, and online news articles. We also created a network figure depicting relationships across key content categories or nodes. For geospatial diffusion within the United States, we compared locations of the 109 National Public Radio (NPR) stations covering the statement to 775 NPR stations not covering the statement. For temporal diffusion, we normalized and segmented Twitter data into periods before and after the press release (September 12, 2015 to September 22, 2015 vs September 23, 2015 to October 3, 2015) and conducted a burst analysis to identify changes in tweets from before to after. RESULTS:Topical information diffused across sources was similar with the exception of the more scientific terms "vasomotor symptoms" or "vms" versus the more colloquial term "hot flashes." Online news articles indicated media coverage of the statement was mainly concentrated in the United States. NPR station data showed similar proportions of stations airing the story across the four census regions (Northeast, Midwest, south, west; P?=?0.649). Release of the statement coincided with bursts in the menopause conversation on Twitter. CONCLUSIONS:The findings of this study may be useful for directing the development and dissemination of future North American Menopause Society position statements and/or press releases.
| S-EPMC5607090 | BioStudies