On Maggie Mahar’s Health Beat Blog, see Naomi Freundlich’s piece, “New Health Indicators Site is a ‘Treasure Trove’ of Valuable Data.”
On the Dose of Digital blog, see Jonathan Richman’s excellent analysis, “Lies, Damn Lies, and Pharma Social Media Statistics.”
The FDA has announced a webinar for next Thursday (April 28) on its “Bad Ads Program,” intended to nudge health care professions to report false or misleading prescription drug promotion. Webinar signup details appear online.
The FDA also this week posted a warning, “Hand Sanitizers Carry Unproven Claims to Prevent MRSA Infections.”
An article in the journal, Family Medicine, “Physicians’ Attitudes About Shared Decision Making for Prostate Cancer Screening.” (pdf file) The authors write that their data “provide evidence of the multiple challenges that physicians face when assisting their patients in the shared decision making (SDM) process for prostate cancer screening. This is demonstrated by their endorsement of SDM on the one hand and the support of annual PSA testing for men over 50 on the other hand.”
Journalist Laura Newman has launched a new blog, “Patient POV.” Excerpt from her first post:
“You don’t have to look very far to find patients who feel nobody is listening to them these days, even though there is a robust patient empowerment and support community. Yet a wealth of stories are not being told because they may not mesh with the agenda of advocacy or health reform groups. That’s where Patient POV, for point of view, comes in. I plan to solicit stories from patients who feel that they are not being heard. They may have simmering inside them perspectives on what’s lacking in health care that might hint at how it could be better. Many patients may have helpful suggestions about how healthcare could be reconfigured to make it more responsive to their needs and help other patients like them. Families and caregivers also have plenty to say.”
Bill Heisel posts an interesting Q&A with journalist Liz Scherer, “Fighting the medicalization of menopause one post at a time.”
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Major revisions + reversals of reporting about the efficacy of remdesivir and HCQ have compromised the public's trust in scientists and physicians. Complexity and caution are key to public #COVID19 communications @garyschwitzer https://ja.ma/3fzUW0M
SPH adjunct associate professor @garyschwitzer presented to @Georgetown University public health students on how #covid19 has been "the perfect storm of politics, PR, and polluted messages to the public."
Watch the recorded zoom presentation here: https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/09/perfect-storm-of-politics-pr-polluted-messages-to-the-public/.
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
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