ArticleInternational journal of preventive medicine2017
Promoting the Quality of Health Research-based News: Introduction of a Tool.
Article in International journal of preventive medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Irish Media Coverage of COVID-19 Evidence-Based Research Reports From One National Agency.International journal of health policy and management · 2022Article
- Can we improve the quality of medical news merely by increasing journalists' health knowledge?Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile disseminating health research findings to the public, it is very important to present appropriate and accurate information to give the target audience a correct understanding of the subject matter. The objective of this study was to design and psychometrically evaluate a checklist for health journalists to help them prepare news of appropriate accuracy and authenticity.
methodsThe study consisted of two phases, checklist design and psychometrics. Literature review and expert opinion were used to extract the items of the checklist in the first phase. In the second phase, to assess content and face validity, the judgment of 38 persons (epidemiologists with a tool production history, editors-in-chief, and health journalists) was used to check the items' understandability, nonambiguity, relevancy, and clarity. Reliability was assessed by the test-retest method using intra-cluster correlation (ICC) indices in the two phases. Cronbach's alpha was used to assess internal validity of the checklist.
resultsBased on the participants' opinions, the items were reduced from 20 to 14 in number. The items were categorized into the following three domains: (a) items assessing the source of news and its validity, (b) items addressing the presentation of complete and accurate information on research findings, and (c) items which if adhered to lead to the target audiences' better understanding. The checklist was approved for content and face validity. The reliability of the checklist was assessed in the last stage; the ICC was 1 for 12 items and above 0.8 for the other two. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.98. DISCUSSION AND
conclusionsThe resultant indices of the study indicate that the checklist has appropriate validity and reliability. Hence, it can be used by health journalists to develop health research-based news.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.