This CNN story reported on a study that found in a survey of Canadian workers, women who reported usually working 45 hours or more per week had a significantly higher risk of diabetes than women working between 35 and 40 hours.
So far, so good.
The story misfires though when it translates that finding into an ill-advised directive for women to work less in the headline: “Hard-working women, go home earlier to avoid this disease.”
This was an observational study, incapable of demonstrating cause-and-effect, and so it’s inaccurate to state that longer work hours increased the risk of diabetes for these women or that working less would reduce that risk.
The story is also on shaky footing when it advises women to “ask for a raise or get their partners to pick up around the house more” to prevent diabetes. Those statements are a huge stretch from what the study actually showed.
Moreover, the story didn’t acknowledge the costs that women who implement these recommendations might incur — including lower pay, less job satisfaction, and long-term damage to women’s career prospects.
Bottom line: Diabetes is a serious disease with a global health impact, and news reporting shouldn’t convey over-simplistic notions about how to avert it. A headline telling women to “go home earlier” from work to avoid diabetes might draw a lot of clicks, but it’s not rooted in science.
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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