As a TIME story points out, a new study on light activity and reduced mortality can’t prove a cause-and-effect relationship, yet the story never really explains why this is the case.
However, the story could have provided more information on the potential harms of screening tests, as well as expected costs.
Any time medical experts spout the routine lifestyle advice, reporters should press them to explain what is really likely to change for people.
But more needed to be said about the potential harms of the treatments–which carry risks–as well as their general availability and cost.
The story is exceptionally concise — a news brief rather than a feature — but does a good job of describing the study and placing it in the context of the “opioid crisis” in the U.S.
Yet it didn’t give enough details on how cervical cancer rates compared among groups.
Although one of the researchers calls the work exciting, we’re not sure what he’s talking about.
That said, the story contains lots of helpful detail on the limitations of the study.
A robust discussion of what the study measured was a strong point of this story.
The story also discusses the potential hurdles in getting insurance coverage for the procedure.