I’ve recently become aware of – and hope to collaborate and share ideas with – a Canadian website called EvidenceNetwork.ca.
The founders describe this as “a non-partisan web-based project funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and the Manitoba Health Research Council to make the latest evidence on controversial health policy issues available to the media. This site links journalists with health policy experts to provide access to credible, evidence-based information.”
It’s hosted at the University of Manitoba, and founded by Noralou P. Roos, CM, PhD, Professor, Dept. of Community Health Sciences there and by Sharon Manson Singer, PhD, adjunct professor of research at Carleton University.
They post articles on topics such as the following:
AGING POPULATION AND ITS POTENTIAL IMPACT
MORE CARE IS NOT ALWAYS BETTER
HEALTH IS MORE THAN HEALTHCARE PRIVATE, FOR-PROFIT SOLUTIONS
TO FUNDING AND DELIVERY
One of the project’s interns recently wrote a good summary of their work. Excerpt:
Having worked both in government and academic circles, Roos and Manson Singer often saw a disconnect between evidence on controversial health policy topics and how it was reported by journalists.
“As an academic, I was always reading the paper and thinking that doesn’t reflect what I know about the issue,’” Roos said.
The professor of Community Health Services at the University of Manitoba described reading several newspapers articles that seemed to promote myths and misconceptions about the future and sustainability of Canadian healthcare.
“Even though there is a lot of evidence out there, it is somehow never really communicated in a way which is understood,” Roos said.
The site offers journalists an impressive list of experts “chosen based on standing in the health policy research/academic community, publishing record, ability to communicate in lay language, the absence of partisan ties including political activity and lobbying affiliations. Some regional balance of experts is sought. The Evidence Network understands the time constraints that journalists labour under and has asked each of the experts to respond to media inquiries within a two hour timeframe, whenever possible.”
We, too, offer a list of industry-independent experts on HealthNewsReview.org – a list that has recently been and is currently still being updated. We may add some of EvidenceNetwork.ca’s experts to our list in coming weeks.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
The tale of two “negative” studies. Or, how spin is applied to make research findings look more impressive. A must read. https://johnmandrola.substack.com/p/the-tale-of-two-negative-studies
The @nytimes chose to interview one of the editors of the @AnnalsofIM (publisher of this paper) who "gushed with extraordinary glee: It’s huge! There are very few things that reduce your mortality by 30%."
Turns out coffee is not one of those few things despite all that glee. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1533202075928215558
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