Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24834118›Full record

ArticleEcancermedicalscience2014

The media and cancer: education or entertainment? An ethnographic study of European cancer journalists.

Ajay Aggarwal, Rekha Batura, Richard Sullivan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ecancermedicalscience, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Exploring cancer knowledge and sources of information among the public: An analytical study.African journal of primary health care & family medicine · 2025
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Drug breakthrough offers hope to arthritis sufferers: qualitative analysis of medical research in UK newspapers.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2017
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ajay AggarwalInstitute of Cancer Policy, Kings Health Partners Integrated Cancer Centre, Guy's NHS Foundation Trust Campus & Kings College London, Department of Research Oncology, Bermondsey Wing, London SE1 9RT, UK ; Guys & St Thomas' NHS Trust, Department of Clinical Oncology, London SE1 7EH, UK ; Kings College London, London SE1 9RT, UK.
Rekha BaturaInstitute of Cancer Policy, Kings Health Partners Integrated Cancer Centre, Guy's NHS Foundation Trust Campus & Kings College London, Department of Research Oncology, Bermondsey Wing, London SE1 9RT, UK ; Kings College London, London SE1 9RT, UK.
Richard SullivanInstitute of Cancer Policy, Kings Health Partners Integrated Cancer Centre, Guy's NHS Foundation Trust Campus & Kings College London, Department of Research Oncology, Bermondsey Wing, London SE1 9RT, UK ; Kings College London, London SE1 9RT, UK.
King's College London · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The media plays a vital role in informing the public about new developments in cancer research and influencing cancer policy. This is no easy task, in view of the myriad of trials and wonder drugs that purport to be the 'magic bullet'. However, misrepresentation can have profound consequences. In this qualitative study, we sought to understand the interaction between the media and cancer through the perspective of European science journalists by defining their attitudes towards current cancer research and challenges faced when reporting science news. A total of 67 respondents took part in this online survey, which was distributed by the European CanCer Organisation (ECCO) to all its media contacts between June and September 2013. Fifty-three per cent had over 20 years experience in reporting science news stories. The respondents utilised a number of media formats, including newsprint, online services, and radio. Fifty per cent ranked public interest as the greatest influence on their selection of cancer research topics, followed by topicality. Respondents were conscious of being fed ambiguous and exaggerated results from trials by the research community. Sixty-five per cent of respondents would appreciate access to a forum of experts willing to provide comment on new research findings. Seventy per cent highlighted the importance of prompt responses from scientists and researchers during correspondence, and the need to have advance warning of new developments (49%). To conclude - coverage of cancer related issues and scientific advances require greater collaboration between the press and cancer healthcare community to provide both credibility and accountability for the health information disseminated. Key areas include a more precise definition of the research context and differentiation of absolute and relative risks, as well as individual and population risks and an informed discussion about the realities and limitations of cancer care and research.

Indexed as

Cancerhealth informationmediapublic reportingresearchtrials

Identifiers

PMID24834118
PMCPMC3998657
OpenAlexW2122215007

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.