Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37247188›Full record

ReviewEcoHealth2023

Newspaper Coverage and Framing of Bats, and Their Impact on Readership Engagement.

Adrià López-Baucells, Natalia Revilla-Martín, Maria Mas, Pedro Alonso-Alonso, Ivana Budinski, Sara Fraixedas, Álvaro Fernández-Llamazares

Open access · bronzeAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in EcoHealth, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 5 countries.

Adrià López-Baucells *BiBio - Natural Sciences Museum of Granollers, Avinguda Francesc Macià 51 Baixos, 08402, Granollers, Catalonia, Spain. adria.baucells@gmail.com.ORCID 0000-0001-8446-0108
Natalia Revilla-Martín *BiBio - Natural Sciences Museum of Granollers, Avinguda Francesc Macià 51 Baixos, 08402, Granollers, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-2379-5718
Maria MasBiBio - Natural Sciences Museum of Granollers, Avinguda Francesc Macià 51 Baixos, 08402, Granollers, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-9309-5413
Pedro Alonso-AlonsoCIBIO - Research Centre in Biodiversity and Genetic Resources, Vila do Conde, Distrito do Porto, Portugal.ORCID 0000-0001-8791-5227
Ivana BudinskiBiBio - Natural Sciences Museum of Granollers, Avinguda Francesc Macià 51 Baixos, 08402, Granollers, Catalonia, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-8834-4200
Sara FraixedasHelsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0003-1407-0387
Álvaro Fernández-LlamazaresHelsinki Institute of Sustainability Science (HELSUS), Faculty of Biological and Environmental Sciences, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland.ORCID 0000-0002-7813-0222
Hospital General de Granollers · ESUniversitat Autònoma de Barcelona · ESUniversity of Arizona · USUniversity of Belgrade · RSUniversity of Helsinki · FI

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The media is a valuable pathway for transforming people's attitudes towards conservation issues. Understanding how bats are framed in the media is hence essential for bat conservation, particularly considering the recent fearmongering and misinformation about the risks posed by bats. We reviewed bat-related articles published online no later than 2019 (before the recent COVID19 pandemic), in 15 newspapers from the five most populated countries in Western Europe. We examined the extent to which bats were presented as a threat to human health and the assumed general attitudes towards bats that such articles supported. We quantified press coverage on bat conservation values and evaluated whether the country and political stance had any information bias. Finally, we assessed their terminology and, for the first time, modelled the active response from the readership based on the number of online comments. Out of 1095 articles sampled, 17% focused on bats and diseases, 53% on a range of ecological and conservation topics, and 30% only mention bats anecdotally. While most of the ecological articles did not present bats as a threat (97%), most articles focusing on diseases did so (80%). Ecosystem services were mentioned on very few occasions in both types (< 30%), and references to the economic benefits they provide were meagre (< 4%). Disease-related concepts were recurrent, and those articles that framed bats as a threat were the ones that garnered the highest number of comments. Therefore, we encourage the media to play a more proactive role in reinforcing positive conservation messaging by presenting the myriad ways in which bats contribute to safeguarding human well-being and ecosystem functioning.

Indexed as

ChiropteraCOVID-19AnimalsCommunicationEcosystemEuropeHumansChiropteraCOVID-19DiseaseRisk perceptionScience communicationSocial mediaVirus

Identifiers

PMID37247188
PMCPMC10225754
OpenAlexW4378640013

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.