I attended and spoke at the Preventing Overdiagnosis conference in Barcelona last week. It drew a large international audience – including representatives from Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, China, England, Finland, Germany, Ireland, Israel, Norway, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland – an incomplete list, to be sure. Included among the attendees were three other people who work on HealthNewsReview.org: Alan Cassels, Dr. Saurabh Jha, and Dr. Jim Rickert.
The topic of overdiagnosis is now drawing so much attention that one session was entitled, “Around the world in 80 names: exploring global variation in terminology pertaining to ‘preventing overdiagnosis.’ ” Here’s a slide from that session:
As the slide suggests, there are a lot of different concerns represented under the overdiagnosis banner and it has no single, broadly accepted definition. Some suggest “too much medicine” as a catch-all phrase for representing the issue to the public.
Peruse the program with me and you’ll see the wide-ranging topics that were discussed in an overdiagnosis context: osteoporosis (bone density screening), overuse of MRI, preterm labor overdiagnosis, PSA screening, mammography screening, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, abdominal aortic aneurysm screening, genetic screening, ADHD, cardiac genomics, dementia, amyloid PET scans, thyroid cancer, polycystic ovary syndrome, low back pain, etc. This is a woefully incomplete list from a 3-day conference. If you follow us regularly, you know that we’ve touched on most of these themes in what we’ve written through the years.
And then there was my 90-minute session, “Pernicious Promotion of Overdiagnosis in PR News Releases.” It was not difficult for me to come up with examples from our 18 months of reviewing 250 PR news releases so far.
At the conference, I recorded a couple of podcasts interviews, which I’ll be producing over the next few days/weeks, touching on some of the innovative media approaches that some researchers have begun taking to address overdiagnosis issues. Stay tuned.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Progression-free survival: medical jargon that fuels public confusion about cancer treatment & journalism often fails to clarify. @mcjaklevic w/help from @VincentRK @adamcifu @Deadline2020 @DrAttai https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2019/10/how-one-bit-of-medical-jargon-fuels-public-confusion-about-cancer-treatments/
The @nytimeswell effort is shown to be unwell once again.
There's pervasive media bias toward hyping treatment benefits while neglecting negative results & harms.
Big part of this is reliance on experts with financial &/or intellectual conflicts of interest.
Att'n journalists: Use this list 100 independent experts to correct imbalance https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1177189641218330625
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