Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35715183›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Interventions to improve media coverage of medical research: a codesigned feasibility and acceptability study with Australian journalists.

Tessa Copp, Thomas Dakin, Brooke Nickel, Loai Albarqouni, Liam Mannix, Kirsten J McCaffery, Alexandra Barratt, Ray Moynihan

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 14% of its field
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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Cancer overdiagnosis: a challenge in the era of screening.Journal of the National Cancer Center · 2022
    Article
  6. 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

8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Tessa CoppWiser Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia tessa.copp@sydney.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0001-7801-5884
Thomas DakinWiser Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Brooke NickelWiser Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8100-4278
Loai AlbarqouniInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4114-9106
Liam MannixThe Age, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Kirsten J McCafferyWiser Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
Alexandra BarrattWiser Healthcare, Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Ray MoynihanInstitute for Evidence-Based Healthcare, Bond University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
The University of Sydney · AUBond University · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAlthough the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia.

designA small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign.

setting90 min online workshop.

participantsEight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers.

interventionThe training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics. MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.

resultsAll participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion.

conclusionsPiloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchMass MediaAustraliaFeasibility StudiesHumansSurveys and Questionnaireseducation & training (see medical education & training)medical education & trainingpublic health

Identifiers

PMID35715183
PMCPMC9207948
OpenAlexW4283012870

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.