Medicine and the media: Medical experts’ problems and solutions while working with journalists
Autoři:
Anna Larsson aff001; Susanna Appel aff002; Carl Johan Sundberg aff003; Mårten Rosenqvist aff001
Působiště autorů:
Karolinska Institutet, Department of Clinical Science, Danderyd University Hospital, Danderyd, Sweden
aff001; KTH Royal Institute of Technology, Science for Life Laboratory, Solna, Sweden
aff002; Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
aff003; Department of Learning, Informatics, Management and Ethics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
aff004
Vyšlo v časopise:
PLoS ONE 14(9)
Kategorie:
Research Article
doi:
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0220897
Souhrn
Medical experts are one of the main sources used by journalists in reporting on medical science. This study aims to 1) identify problems that medical experts encounter in contacts with the media representatives, 2) elucidate their attitudes about interactions with journalists and 3) reflect on solutions that could improve the quality of medical journalism.
By using in-depth interviews, focus groups and a survey directed to 600 medical experts in 21 countries, this cohort study elucidates medical experts’ experiences and views on participating in popular media. A strong interest in interacting with the media was identified among the experts, where nearly one fifth of the respondents in the survey claimed that they contacted the media more than 10 times per year. Six obstacles for improving the quality of medical reporting in the media were found: deadlines, headlines, choice of topic or angle, journalist’s level of medical knowledge, differences in professional culture and colleagues’ opinions.
The main concern among experts was that short deadlines and exaggerated headlines could harm journalistic quality. It is possible that this is partly due to ongoing changes in the media landscape with many new platforms and less control functions. Nevertheless, for several reasons many experts have great interest in interacting with the media, something that could contribute to better communication and fewer misunderstandings.
Our results highlight factors like expert networks, media training for scientists and regular meetings that may facilitate communication between medical experts and medical reporters.
Klíčová slova:
Medicine and health sciences – Medical humanities – Medical journals – Health care – Health care policy – Science policy – Science and technology workforce – Careers in research – Scientists – People and places – Population groupings – Professions – Social sciences – Sociology – Communications – Mass media – Journalism – Research and analysis methods – Scientific publishing – Research design – Survey research – Surveys – Computer and information sciences – Computer networks – Internet
Zdroje
1. Grilli R, Freemantle N, Minozzi S, Domenighetti G, Finer D. Mass Media Interventions: Effects on Health Services Utilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2000;(2): CD 000389. Update in Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(1): CD 000389.
2. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad P. Importance of the Lay Press in the Transmission of Medical Knowledge to the Scientific Community; N Engl J Med. 1991;325(16):1180–1183. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199110173251620 1891034
3. Viswanath K, Blake KD, Meissner HI, Saiontz NG, Mull C, Freeman CS et al. Occupational Practices and the Making of Health News: A National Survey of U.S. Health and Medical Science Journalists. J Health com 2008;13(8):759–77. doi: 10.1080/10810730802487430 19051112
4. Leask J, Hooker C, King C. Media coverage of health issues and how to work more effectively with journalists: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health. 2010;10:535. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-10-535 20822552
5. Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet. 1996;347:1600–1603. doi: 10.1016/s0140-6736(96)91081-8 8667872
6. Larsson A, Oxman AD, Carling C, Herrin J. Medical messages in the media—barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism. Health Expect. 2003;6:323–331. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-7625.2003.00228.x 15040794
7. Hooker C, King C, Leask J. Journalists’ views about reporting avian influenza and a potential pandemic: a qualitative study. Influenza Other Respir Viruses. 2012;(3):224–229. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-2659.2011.00319.x Epub 2011 Dec 17. 22176678
8. Lubens P. Journalists and public health professionals: challenges of a symbiotic relationship. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015;(1):59–63. doi: 10.1017/dmp.2014.127 Epub 2014 Nov 10. 25382141
9. Ashwell DJ. The challenges of science journalism: The perspectives of scientists, science communication advisors and journalists from New Zealand. Public Understanding Sci. 2016;(3):379–93. doi: 10.1177/0963662514556144 Epub 2014 Nov 11. 25387869
10. Taylor JW, Long M, Ashley E, Denning A, Gout B, Hansen K, et al. When medical news comes from press releases–a case study of pancreatic cancer and processed meat; PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127848. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0127848 26083640
11. Hartz J, Chappell R. Worlds Apart: How the distance between science and journalism threatens America’s future. First Amendment Center Nashville, TN. 1997; #98-F02.
12. Woloshin S, Schwarz LM. Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed. Med J Aust. 2006;184(11):576–580. 16768666
13. Shuchman M, Wilkes MS. Medical scientists and health news reporting: a case of miscommunication. Ann Intern Med.1997;126 (12):976–982. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-126-12-199706150-00008 9182476
14. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, Watkins J, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(22):1645–1650. doi: 10.1056/NEJM200006013422206 10833211
15. Geller G, Bernhardt BA, Gardner M, Rodgers J, Holtzman NA. Scientists’ and science writers’ experiences reporting genetic discoveries: toward an ethic trust in science journalism. Genet Med. 2005;7:198. 15775756
16. Peters HP. Gap between science and media revisited: Scientists as public communicators. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2013;110 suppl 3: 14102–14109. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212745110 Epub 2013 Aug 12. 23940312
17. Nelkin D. Selling science: How the Press Covers Science and Technology. New York: W.H. Freeman; 1987
18. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Chevigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S. Interactions with the Mass Media. Science. 2008; 321: 204–205 doi: 10.1126/science.1157780 18625578
19. Besley JC, Nisbet M. How scientists view the public, the media and the political process. Public Underst Sci. 2013 Aug 22(6):644–59. doi: 10.1177/0963662511418743 Epub 2011 Aug 30. 23885050
20. Kohring M, Marcinkowski F, Lindner C, Karis S. Media orientation of German university decision makers and the executive influence of public relations. Public Relations Review 2013; 39: 171–177. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2013.01.002
21. Weitkamp E, Eidsvaag T. Agenda building in media coverage of food research. Journal Pract (Internet). 2014;2786:1–16 Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17512786.2013.865966.
22. Brumfiel G. Science journalism: Supplanting the old media? Nature 2009;458(7236):274–7. doi: 10.1038/458274a 19295582
23. Von Dohnanyi J, Möller C. The Impact of Media Concentration on Professional Journalism. www.osce.oer/fom. Accessed 190510.
24. MacDonald JB, Saliba AJ, Hodgins G, Ovington LA. Burnout in Journalists: A systematic literature review. Burnout Research 2016;3:34–44.
25. Wilkes MS, Krawitz RL. Medical researchers and the media. Attitudes toward public dissemination of research. JAMA 1992;268(8):999–1003. 1501326
26. Holtzman NA, Bernhardt BA, Mountcastle-Shah E, Rodgers J, Tambor E, Geller G. The quality of media reports on discoveries related to human genetic diseases. Community genet. 2005;8:133–144. doi: 10.1159/000086756 16113530
27. Ramsay ME. Measles: the legacy of low vaccine coverage. Archives of Disease in Childhood 2013;98:752–754. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2013-304292 23898160
28. Peters HP. Scientific sources and the mass media: Forms and consequences of medialization. In: Rödder S, Franzen M, Weingart P, editors. The Sciences’ Media Connection–Public Communication and its Repercussions. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2012, pp 217–239.
29. Peters HP, Brossard D, de Chevigné S, Dunwoody S, Kallfass M, Miller S, Tsuchida S. Interactions with the Mass Media. Science. 2008; 321: 204–205 doi: 10.1126/science.1157780 18625578
Článek vyšel v časopise
PLOS One
2019 Číslo 9
- Případ Bulovka: Jak postupují jiné nemocnice, aby podobným tragédiím zabránily?
- Zvoní budík? Přispěte si ještě chvilku, bude vám to myslet rychleji!
- Jak často se u masových střelců vyskytují duševní choroby?
- Metamizol jako analgetikum první volby: kdy, pro koho, jak a proč?
- Není statin jako statin aneb praktický přehled rozdílů jednotlivých molekul
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Graviola (Annona muricata) attenuates behavioural alterations and testicular oxidative stress induced by streptozotocin in diabetic rats
- CH(II), a cerebroprotein hydrolysate, exhibits potential neuro-protective effect on Alzheimer’s disease
- Comparison between Aptima Assays (Hologic) and the Allplex STI Essential Assay (Seegene) for the diagnosis of Sexually transmitted infections
- Assessment of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase activity using CareStart G6PD rapid diagnostic test and associated genetic variants in Plasmodium vivax malaria endemic setting in Mauritania
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Všechny kurzy