HealthNewsReview.org | Independent Expert Reviews of News Stories | Holding Health and Medical Journalism Accountable |
|
|
The Pill and Gaining Muscle
April 17, 2009
Confusing segment on different potential benefits and harms of oral contraceptives. But viewers' heads were left spinning - a side effect of morning shows. All in all, a vague and vapid piece.
Our Review Summary
While ostensibly about the impact birth control pill use had on muscle mass development, the segment failed to provide information about the degree to which muscle development was affected. The benefit of the treatment, mentioned in the very opening of the piece, was avoidance of a baby-bump. The story did not include any information about how successful 'the pill' is at baby-bump prevention. The story then went on to talk about other potential side effects from the use of birth control pills and other potential harms that one ought to discuss with one's doctor. However - no attempt was made to enlighten viewers about what they might be.
All in all, a vague and vapid piece.
Click on Criteria for definitions.
While it is true that birth control pills are commonly refered to as 'the pill', it would seem necessary to actually specify that the story was about birth control pills. As much as our reviewers scrutinize health care news every day, we had to think twice or thrice before really understanding that the piece was about oral contraceptives. And although an on-screen graphic provided a glimpse of packaging for one month's worth of birth control pills, the story actually never stated what type of pill it was about. It wasn't clear whether the story was about a morning after pill or a birth control pill - nor was it clear whether the pill in question was available over the counter or by prescription.
There was no discusion of cost. While the main subject of the piece was about a negative effect, since there was also discussion about benefits, cost would seem to be germane to the discussion.
"Fighting the battle of the bulge" - is this a feared medical condition? And were they talking about added weight or a failure to build additional muscle mass? As the story failed to provide any sort of quantification of how much added 'bulge' might be anticipated based on the use of birth control pills, this could be construed as disease mongering.
The medical correspondent explained to the interviewer that the information she was discussing involved the results of a new study. However there was no attempt to provide information about the nature of the study or the availabilty of the results of the study so that viewers might be able to assess the significance of the new information.
The medical correspondent mentioned that there were lots of risk-benefits from the use of this treatment and that "people need to know about them". However - no attempt was made to enlighten viewers about what they might be.
The story appeared to be about how 'the pill' could interfere with development of muscle mass. However - other than informing viewers that they could still increase muscle mass when taking 'the pill' if they only worked harder - it failed to provide viewers with an idea of the extent to which mucle mass development might be compromised.
Hard to say how the story described the noveltly of the treatment. On one hand - we the viewer are so familar with the pill that we all are assumed to know it without even mentioning its name. On the other hand, as there are different formulations of birth control pills available - it is difficult to know if the story was about one that is new or one that has been available for years.
The benefit of the treatment, mentioned in the very opening of the piece, was avoidance of a baby-bump. The story did not include any information about how successful 'the pill' is at baby-bump prevention.
In addition, air time was spent explaining that 'the pill' decreased the risk for ovarian/uterine cancer. However viewers were not provided with information about how common these cancers were or the extent to which their risk was diminished for individuals who take the pill. So it was not possible to watch this segment and gain insight about how valuable this benefit might be.
We can't be sure what the story relied on for information. (The 'study' discussed was actually a presentation at a recent meeting of the American Physiological Society)
We can't be sure what the sources were. No one was interviewed. Only a talking-head TV doc appearing in the studio.
While recommending a time consuming conversation with one's doctor, this piece did not include information about treatment options.
Total Score: 0 of 8 Satisfactory
The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force is considered the gold standard of preventive health recommendations - including on screening tests. It's a good source for journalists and consumers.
About 70% of the stories reviewed from 2006-9 failed to adequately discuss costs, or to explain how big (or small) are the potential benefits and harms of treatments, tests, products and procedures.
We have documented a disturbing trend of news stories taking an advocacy stance, promoting certain screening tests outside the boundaries of scientific evidence.
Stories on new technologies like Cyberknife, DaVinci robotic surgery systems, and proton beam cancer therapy often fail to scrutinize the evidence and/or to discuss the costs involved.
Rather than suggesting that everyone should be screened for everything, news stories could explain: "All screening tests cause harm; some may do good."
The first 38 network TV network morning health news stories reviewed in 2009 earned an average score of 1.2 stars. 13 of the 38 stories got ZERO stars.
Both TIME magazine and BusinessWeek have published terrific stories explaining the importance of the Number Needed to Treat - or NNT.
Knowing relative risk reduction is like knowing you have a 50% off coupon but not knowing whether it's for a Lexus or a lollipop. Absolute risk reduction tells you what the "coupon" is worth. Read more.
The website NoFreeLunch.org posts "a database of health care professionals who have pledged to accept no gifts from industry and to rely on non-promotional sources of information."
To help journalists cover stories responsibly, we post a list of independent experts who state that they do not have financial ties to drug or medical device manufacturers.
We apply the same ten standardized criteria to the review of every story.
We have about 30 story reviewers. Each story is reviewed by 3 different people.
Gary Schwitzer's seven words you shouldn't use in medical news: cure, miracle, breakthrough, promising, dramatic, hope, victim. Read why.
Our reviewers include two former CNN medical reporters and a former editor of the Washington Post health section.