The FDA’s Risk Communication Advisory Committee, of which I’m a member, today published a book written by committee members, “Communicating Risks and Benefits: An Evidence-Based User’s Guide.”
The book is available online as a pdf file.
My chapter was on the tendency for journalists, when reporting on health care interventions, to exaggerate benefits and minimize or ignore potential harms.
Committee chair Baruch Fischhoff, PhD, Carnegie Mellon University, said:
“A goal was to make communication science accessible. Another was to facilitate evidence-based approaches.”
Each chapter is 3,000 words, each addressing these points:
What does the science say?
What does the science mean? (best guesses for communication)
How can you tell how well you’ve done? (how good are your best guesses?)
Evaluation you can do with no budget, with a little budget, or with a bigger budget.
“We wanted to make people feel guilty if they didn’t do any evaluation,” Fischhoff said.
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
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Roger M. Strube, MD
August 16, 2011 at 1:52 pmThis is truly a great resource and it appears to hit the nail on the mark. Catering to their audience is my only guess why journalists only focus on benefits. It seems that people need a sense of self-gratification for information to be relevant.
There might be some truth to that. But to warn people of the downside of medical issues, is important too.
I just published a new book about the cause of our current health care crisis and propose a cure too. I suggest the implementation of problem oriented electronic medical records would solve 90 percent of our health care problem and shift the paradigm of fee-for-services, which is the current model to an approach that actually address and solves medical problem patients have. With my plan communication and deliver wof medical services would change a great deal.
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