The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: a replication study

Misunderstanding the harms of online misinformation

The controversy over online misinformation and social media has opened a gap between public discourse and scientific research. Public intellectuals and journalists frequently make sweeping claims about the effects of exposure to false content online that are inconsistent with much of the current empirical evidence. Here we identify three common misperceptions: that average exposure to problematic content is high, that algorithms are largely responsible for this exposure and that social media is a primary cause of broader social problems such as polarization. In our review of behavioural science research on online misinformation, we document a pattern of low exposure to false and inflammatory content that is concentrated among a narrow fringe with strong motivations to seek out such information. In response, we recommend holding platforms accountable for facilitating exposure to false and extreme content in the tails of the distribution, where consumption is highest and the risk of real-world harm is greatest. We also call for increased platform transparency, including collaborations with outside researchers, to better evaluate the effects of online misinformation and the most effective responses to it. Taking these steps is especially important outside the USA and Western Europe, where research and data are scant and harms may be more severe.

Public Understanding of Childhood Obesity: Qualitative Analysis of News Articles and Comments on Facebook

Childhood obesity has become a major focus of public health and subject to increased news coverage. News can shape public understanding of childhood obesity by selective reporting (framing) which can affect policy support and weight stigma. As news is consumed on social media, comments on articles present a novel method to explore public understanding. This study examined how childhood obesity is framed by news articles on Facebook and how individuals commenting understand and react to these articles. This study used a qualitative research design. Facebook pages of 11 national UK news outlets were searched for news articles on childhood obesity published between May 2015 and May 2020. Of those, 30 articles were randomly selected. Framing analysis was used to determine whether childhood obesity was portrayed as a behavioral, societal or medical issue. Responding comments (N = 1,104) were grouped according to the dominant frame of the corresponding article and analyzed using qualitative content analysis. Of the 30 articles, 28 mentioned societal, 26 behavioral and 18 medical aspects of childhood obesity, highlighting that most articles included more than one frame. Three themes were generated from responding comments: Culprits and Remedies, Appraising Childhood Obesity and Making Sense of the News Article. Findings showed that comments related to Appraising Childhood Obesity differed between differently framed articles, while the other themes did not. This study highlights the need for improved communication on childhood obesity to address weight stigma and improve understanding of news articles.

Misrepresentation of mild traumatic brain injury research in press releases

BACKGROUND

Press releases from academic medical centers often form the basis for health and science news stories. Press release coverage of mild traumatic brain injury (mTBI) research has not been formally appraised in the literature.

OBJECTIVE

To perform a systematic content analysis of mTBI-based press releases.

DESIGN

Retrospective database study.

SETTING

EurekAlert! (eurekalert.org), the main distribution engine for scientific press releases.

PARTICIPANTS

Press releases indexed between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2019 containing a minimum of 150 words.

INTERVENTIONS

Preestablished, investigator-generated criteria delineating aspects of misinformation.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS

Press releases were evaluated for manifestations of "spin," including misleading title, misleading reporting, misleading claims, and inappropriate extrapolation.

RESULTS

Our database search yielded 125 entries within the specified time period. Of these, 66 met inclusion criteria. Fifty-five of 66 (83%) press releases exhibited at least one manifestation of spin. We identified 38 (58%) with misleading titles, 49 (74%) with misleading reporting, 44 (67%) with misleading claims, and 38 (58%) with inappropriate extrapolation.

CONCLUSIONS

Our analysis revealed a high degree of spin in recent press releases dedicated to mTBI research. The reports often overstated the strengths and practical impact of the study, publicize substandard research without clinical relevance, while downplaying or failing to report limitations and caveats. Misrepresentation in press releases can affect real-life medical decisions and outcomes.

Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding ineligible criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies.  Results We included 44 primary studies in the review, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty).  Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public's ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

Quality of information in news media reports about the effects of health interventions: Systematic review and meta-analyses

Background Many studies have assessed the quality of news reports about the effects of health interventions, but there has been no systematic review of such studies or meta-analysis of their results. We aimed to fill this gap (PROSPERO ID: CRD42018095032). Methods We included studies that used at least one explicit, prespecified and generic criterion to assess the quality of news reports in print, broadcast, or online news media, and specified the sampling frame, and the selection criteria and technique. We assessed criteria individually for inclusion in the meta-analyses, excluding inappropriate criteria and criteria with inadequately reported results. We mapped and grouped criteria to facilitate evidence synthesis. Where possible, we extracted the proportion of news reports meeting the included criterion. We performed meta-analyses using a random effects model to estimate such proportions for individual criteria and some criteria groups, and to characterise heterogeneity across studies.  Results We included 44 primary studies in the qualitative summary, and 18 studies and 108 quality criteria in the meta-analyses. Many news reports gave an unbalanced and oversimplified picture of the potential consequences of interventions. A limited number mention or adequately address conflicts of interest (22%; 95% CI 7%-49%) (low certainty), alternative interventions (36%; 95% CI 26%-47%) (moderate certainty), potential harms (40%; 95% CI 23%-61%) (low certainty), or costs (18%; 95% CI 12%-28%) (moderate certainty), or quantify effects (53%; 95% CI 36%-69%) (low certainty) or report absolute effects (17%; 95% CI 4%-49%) (low certainty).  Discussion There is room for improving health news, but it is logically more important to improve the public's ability to critically appraise health information and make judgements for themselves.

Misinformation in and about science

Humans learn about the world by collectively acquiring information, filtering it, and sharing what we know. Misinformation undermines this process. The repercussions are extensive. Without reliable and accurate sources of information, we cannot hope to halt climate change, make reasoned democratic decisions, or control a global pandemic. Most analyses of misinformation focus on popular and social media, but the scientific enterprise faces a parallel set of problems-from hype and hyperbole to publication bias and citation misdirection, predatory publishing, and filter bubbles. In this perspective, we highlight these parallels and discuss future research directions and interventions.

Disclosure of study funding and author conflicts of interest in press releases and the news: a retrospective content analysis with two cohorts

OBJECTIVES

To examine how often study funding and author conflicts of interest are stated in science and health press releases and in corresponding news; and whether disclosure in press releases is associated with disclosure in news. Second, to specifically examine disclosure rates in industry-funded studies.

DESIGN

Retrospective content analysis with two cohorts.

SETTING

Press releases about health, psychology or neuroscience research from research universities and journals from 2011 (n=996) and 2015 (n=254) and their associated news stories (n=1250 and 578).

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE

Mention of study funding and author conflicts of interest.

RESULTS

In our 2011 cohort, funding was reported in 94% (934/996) of journal articles, 29% (284/996) of press releases and 9% (112/1250) of news. The corresponding figures for 2015 were: 84% (214/254), 52% (131/254) and 10% (58/578). A similar pattern was seen for the industry funding subset. If the press release reported study funding, news was more likely to: 22% if in the press release versus 7% if not in the press release (2011), relative risk (RR) 3.1 (95% CI 2.1 to 4.3); for 2015, corresponding figures were 16% versus 2%, RR 6.8 (95% CI 2.2 to 17). In journal articles, 27% and 22% reported a conflict of interest, while less than 2% of press releases or news ever mentioned these.

CONCLUSIONS

Press releases and associated news did not frequently state funding sources or conflicts of interest. Funding information in press releases was associated with such information in news. Given converging evidence that news draws on press release content, including statements of funding and conflicts of interest in press releases may lead to increased reporting in news.

Clinical impact of high-profile animal-based research reported in the UK national press

OBJECTIVES

We evaluated animal-based biomedical 'breakthroughs' reported in the UK national press in 1995 (25 years prior to the conclusion of this study). Based on evidence of overspeculative reporting of biomedical research in other areas (eg, press releases and scientific papers), we specifically examined animal research in the media, asking, 'In a given year, what proportion of animal research "breakthroughs"' published in the UK national press had translated, more than 20 years later, to approved interventions?'

METHODS

We searched the Nexis media database (LexisNexis.com) for animal-based biomedical reports in the UK national press. The only restrictions were that the intervention should be specific, such as a named drug, gene, biomedical pathway, to facilitate follow-up, and that there should be claims of some clinical promise.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Were any interventions approved for human use? If so, when and by which agency? If not, why, and how far did development proceed? Were any other, directly related interventions approved? Did any of the reports overstate human relevance?

RESULTS

Overspeculation and exaggeration of human relevance was evident in all the articles examined. Of 27 unique published 'breakthroughs', only one had clearly resulted in human benefit. Twenty were classified as failures, three were inconclusive and three were partially successful.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of animal-based preclinical research studies are commonly overstated in media reports, to prematurely imply often-imminent 'breakthroughs' relevant to human medicine.

Causal overstatements reduced in press releases following academic study of health news

Background: Exaggerations in health news were previously found to strongly associate with similar exaggerations in press releases. Moreover such exaggerations did not appear to attract more news. Here we assess whether press release practice changed after these reported findings; simply drawing attention to the issue may be insufficient for practical change, given the challenges of media environments. Methods: We assessed whether rates of causal over-statement in press releases based on correlational data were lower following a widely publicised paper on the topic, compared to an equivalent baseline period in the preceding year. Results: We found that over-statements in press releases were 28% (95% confidence interval = 16% to 45%) in 2014 and 13% (95% confidence interval = 6% to 25%) in 2015. A corresponding numerical reduction in exaggerations in news was not significant. The association between over-statements in news and press releases remained strong. Conclusions: Press release over-statements were less frequent following publication of Sumner et al. (2014). However, this is correlational evidence and the reduction may be due to other factors or natural fluctuations.