 Advertisement | ||||||||
 | ||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
||
|
From the School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, Victoria, BC (Cassels); the School of Journalism (Hughes), the Department of Health Care and Epidemiology (Hughes, Mintzes), The Institute of Health Promotion Research (Cole), the Centre for Health Services and Policy Research (Mintzes) and the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences (McCormack), University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC; and the School of Health Policy and Management, York University, and the Emergency Department, University Health Network, Toronto, Ont. (Lexchin)
Correspondence to: Alan Cassels, School of Health Information Science, University of Victoria, PO Box 3050, Station CSC, Victoria BC V8W 3P5; fax 250 472-4751; cassels{at}uvic.ca; or James McCormack, Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2146 East Mall, University of British Columbia, Vancouver BC V6T 1Z3; fax 604 822-3035; jmccorma{at}interchange.ubc.ca
Background: Patients routinely cite the media, after physicians and pharmacists, as a key source of information on new drugs, but there has been little research on the quality of drug information presented. We assessed newspaper descriptions of drug benefits and harms, the nature of the effects described and the presence or absence of other important information that can add context and balance to a report about a new drug.
Methods: We looked at newspaper coverage in the year 2000 of 5 prescription drugs launched in Canada between 1996 and 2001 that received a high degree of media attention: atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir and raloxifene. We searched 24 of Canada's largest daily newspapers for articles reporting at least one benefit or harm of any of these 5 drugs. We recorded the benefits and harms reported and analyzed how such information was presented; we also determined whether clinical or surrogate outcomes were mentioned; if and how drug effects were quantified; whether contraindications, other treatment options and costs were mentioned; and whether any information on affiliations of quoted interviewees and potential conflicts of interest was presented.
Results: Our search yielded 193 articles reporting at least one benefit or harm for 1 of the 5 drugs. All of the articles mentioned at least one benefit, but 68% (132/193) made no mention of possible side effects or harms. Only 24% (120/510) of mentions of drug benefits and harms presented quantitative information. In 26% (31/120) of cases in which drug benefits and harms were quantified, the magnitude was presented only in relative terms, which can be misleading. Overall, 62% (119/193) of the articles gave no quantification of the benefits or harms. Thirty-seven (19%) of the 193 articles reported only surrogate benefits. Other information needed for informed drug-related decisions was often lacking: only 7 (4%) of the articles mentioned contraindications, 61 (32%) mentioned drug costs, 89 (46%) mentioned drug alternatives, and 30 (16%) mentioned nondrug treatment options (such as exercise or diet). Sixty-two percent (120/193) of the articles quoted at least one interviewee. After exclusion of industry and government spokespeople, for only 3% (5/164) of interviewees was there any mention of potential financial conflicts of interest. Twenty-six percent (15/57) of the articles discussing a study included information on study funding.
Interpretation: Our results raise concerns about the completeness and quality of media reporting about new medications.
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. Woloshin, L. M. Schwartz, S. L. Casella, A. T. Kennedy, and R. J. Larson Press Releases by Academic Medical Centers: Not So Academic? Ann Intern Med, May 5, 2009; 150(9): 613 - 618. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Hochman, S. Hochman, D. Bor, and D. McCormick News Media Coverage of Medication Research: Reporting Pharmaceutical Company Funding and Use of Generic Medication Names JAMA, October 1, 2008; 300(13): 1544 - 1550. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Lenzer and S. Brownlee Naming names: is there an (unbiased) doctor in the house? BMJ, July 23, 2008; 337(jul23_3): a930 - a930. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. M Wilson, A. M Booth, A. Eastwood, and I. S Watt Deconstructing media coverage of trastuzumab (Herceptin): an analysis of national newspaper coverage J R Soc Med, March 1, 2008; 101(3): 125 - 132. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 T. M. Bubela and T. A. Caulfield Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers Can. Med. Assoc. J., April 27, 2004; 170(9): 1399 - 1407. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. M. Schwartz and S. Woloshin The Media Matter: A Call for Straightforward Medical Reporting Ann Intern Med, February 3, 2004; 140(3): 226 - 228. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | COLLECTIONS | HELP | SEARCH |
|
|||||
|
Copyright 1995-2003, Canadian Medical Association. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329
(e) 0820-3946 (p)
All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association. |
|||||
