|
Writing About Health and Disease: The Most Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them
One of the greatest challenges that medical reporters have to deal with is capturing the scientific complexity of an issue while making the story compelling and understandable for readers.
Many reporters are not trained in medicine and science and learn on the job.
So how are medical reporters to navigate the minefield of pitfalls they face on the job daily? Regardless of background and expertise, all medical journalists should be aware of certain traps.
Writer Ragnar Levi, M.D., says the following are the most common snares in health and medical journalism:
- Reducing reporting to dueling quotes "he said/she said" style.
- Being misled by numbers
- Extrapolating evidence from anecdotes rather than rigorous scientific studies
- Not asking sources to substantiate claims by scientific evidence
- Not questioning findings about the treatment effects
- Mistaking risk factors for diseases and assuming that treating risk factors will do more good than harm
- Misjudging risks by failing to present a realistic idea of the actual odds involved
One way to avoid the above traps is by critically assessing evidence. To do so, never forget to ask these basic questions:
Is this claim valid?
Golden Rule: the greater the claim, the more suspicious reporters should be and the more more evidence they should demand, Levi recommends. THus, a study proclaiming the discovery of an AIDS cure demands detailed evidence and high burden of proof on behalf of those making the claim.
Not all doctors are created equal: An expert in gastroenterology making a claim about brain tumors is not as qualified as an oncologist.
Who's behind the research: Never underestimate the money factor involved in scientific work. Always ask, "Who sponsored the study/research?" and "What does this source stand to gain from this claim?"
Where is the evidence?
Beware of claims such as "breakthrough" and "research shows." Always ask sources to back their claims by research published in peer-reviewed medical journals.
Ask the following questions:
Where did the evidence appear?
What populations were studied?
What research methods were used? (Non-randomized trials are less reliable than randomized; uncontrolled studies are weaker than controlled ones)
Are the results statistically significant?
Do other studies suggest the same conclusions?
Is the evidence strong and relevant? Red flags pointing toward weak evidence include:
Preliminary results are just that--"preliminary" and should be treated with caution
Lack of randomization
Biased samples
Short follow-up, which may lead to premature judgments
No control group, only before and after measurements. Lack of a control group does not take into account alternative explanations of effects
Does the evidence indicate a correlation or true cause and effect?
Above all, always maintain a healthy level of skepticism in any kind of reporting, but especially in medical journalism.
|
|
