I’m choosing to blog about a HealthDay story headlined, “British Study Suggests Mammograms Do More Harm Than Good,” rather than do one of our criteria-driven systematic story reviews because our criteria don’t address the bigger picture.
And that bigger picture is this:
In a criteria-driven, systematic story review of another HealthDay story about a Dutch study this week headlined, “Mammograms Cut Risk of Breast Cancer Death by Half, Study Finds,” our review team commented:
“Given the documented public confusion about mammography, any given story about a new study needs to provide more context than this one did….We’re not sure that women will be any more clear about the state of the evidence after reading this story. There’s been much debate about the benefit of mammography screening and whether the benefits outweigh the harms. This story does not really help women put the information into context, nor does it help them analyze whether this is news that really matters.”
So what happens? Two days after that story, HealthDay publishes the British study story WITH NO REFERENCE TO THE DUTCH STUDY! That’s exactly the point we made in our review of the earlier story.
What are women to make of these two different messages in two days’ time from HealthDay?
I don’t mean to pick on HealthDay. This could have been any news source; I just saw it on HealthDay because we monitor their work daily.
But think of a woman who is in the midst of trying to decide about mammography for herself – and she reads this kind of disjointed, disconnected news coverage that offers no context, no analysis, no linking to what was reported the same week – in short, no help!
The mammography du jour story treatment serves no one.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments (10)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Pink Ribbon Blues
December 9, 2011 at 4:44 pmPardon my silent scream! This is exactly the problem. Reporting that lacks context, continuity, and connection to the body of work as well as its own reporting on the topic does NOTHING to help the public to make sense of the ongoing screening turf wars, nor does it help women who are trying make important decisions for themselves. Unfortunately, this trend is far too common. Thanks for bringing it to light. — Gayle Sulik
James Coyne
December 12, 2011 at 3:14 pmBravo, well put, Pink Ribbon Blues.
@stales
December 12, 2011 at 9:21 pmThis is like an Abbott and Costello routine: Who’s on First? No wonder we can’t make any sense of the “guidelines.” No one else can either! Reporting like you’ve outlined from HealthDay certainly doesn’t help the cause.
The Accidental Amazon
December 13, 2011 at 2:24 amThank you. You save me the trouble of ranting about this myself. If nothing else, these two HealthDay reports just underscore the need for more research on other forms of breast imaging and screening than mammography.
Nancy's Point
December 14, 2011 at 7:25 amThe continuing confusion is quite unsettling. Reporting without substance is becoming more and more common it seems. Sometimes it seems the only thing that matters is a good headline.
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