ArticleHealth promotion international2025
'I'm doomed!': audience responses to media reporting on the link between sleep and Alzheimer's disease.
Article in Health promotion international, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The media are influential in shaping beliefs and attitudes towards health practices and behaviours, and the science of sleep is often disseminated through online news media. This paper explores audience responses to media reporting on the link between disrupted sleep and Alzheimer's disease. The news article analysed was based on a scientific publication reporting on the link between sleep disruption and Alzheimer's disease and the institutional press release about that publication. The online news article and the 536 Facebook comments posted in response were analysed using thematic analysis. Although the scientific article and institutional press release were guarded about the implications of the research for human health, the media article used sensationalist reporting on the impact of a single night's sleep disruption to emphasize the everyday implications of the findings. Audience members who identified as sleeping poorly responded fatalistically, whereas commentors who identified as sleeping well were reassured by the news article. The sensationalist framing provoked an affective response in audience members, which at times led to disbelief in the specific message or questioning of scientific research. Sensationalist media reporting of science has unintended consequences. Attempts to engage audiences with science communication that is simplistic and personal may encourage readers to reject scientific evidence as logically incoherent. This approach discounts the ability of audiences to weigh evidence and accept complexity.
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.