The leading professional organization of health care journalists has just released the latest in its series of “slim guides” – this one written by me with a great deal of help from Ivan Oransky.
“Covering Medical Research: A Guide For Reporting on Studies” is intended primarily for journalists who are new to the beat or for those who have not received training in reporting on the complexities and nuances of evidence-based health care reporting.
The AHCJ statement reads, in part:
“It offers advice on recognizing and reporting the problems, limitations and backstory of a study, as well as publication biases in medical journals and it includes 10 questions you should answer to produce a meaningful and appropriately skeptical report. We hope this guide, supported by the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, will be a road map to help you do a better job of explaining research results for your audience.
Chapters deal with the hierarchy of evidence, putting types of research into context, scrutinizing the quality of evidence, phases of clinical trials, explaining risk, embargoes, pitfalls of news from scientific meetings, criteria for judging your story and more. The guide links to online resources throughout.”
More about this in days and weeks to come.
We hope it will be a good source that will help many journalists.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
Comments (6)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Barb Chamberlain
September 3, 2010 at 2:34 pmGary,
It appears that this can only be purchased as a member of AHCJ and that people who work in media relations (pitching stories to journalists) are not eligible for membership. It sounds like a very useful resource for those of us who work with medical/health sciences researchers and have to explain their work to journalists.
That may be a problem on their website, but when I try to click on the book to purchase it I’m asked for a member log-in. There’s a reference to purchasing it through Amazon but it doesn’t turn up in a direct search at Amazon.com.
@BarbChamberlain
Director of Communications and Public Affairs
Washington State University Spokane
@WSUSpokane
http://www.spokane.wsu.edu/healthsciences
Gary Schwitzer
September 3, 2010 at 2:41 pmBarb,
Thanks for your interest. I agree completely that people like you in positions of communications & public affairs could benefit from this guide.
Please understand that while I wrote it, I don’t own it.
You should approach the leadership of AHCJ about acquiring it.
Gary Schwitzer
Just the author
Not the distributor
Adriane Fugh-Berman MD
September 6, 2010 at 10:41 pmAHCJ needs to make Gary’s guide available! Write to
Len Bruzzese
len@healthjournalism.org
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like