It has been well documented that survivors of a heart attack or patients who have undergone treatment for heart disease are much more likely to experience symptoms of depression. In the past few years, research has also shown that a co-occurence of depression along with heart disease can lead to worse outcomes and reduced quality of life. Recognizing the connection, the American Heart Association has released new guidelines calling for increased screening for depression in heart patients. Whether or not intervention in screened individuals will lead to better heart outcomes is not known, but certainly identifying and treating undiagnosed cases is a positive step.
This relatively short story does a good job of on most of our criteria.
However, the story does not mention any possible downsides of depression screening. While there are few risks, some of the harms could include: missing cases of mild depression, stigma, mislabeling situational stress as an illness, not to mention barriers and difficulties involved in getting the appropriate follow-up care once diagnosed. And it didn’t cost issues, or reimbursement as a barrier to effective screening.
The story didn’t describe the costs of depression screening nor did it mention reimbursement issues as a barrier to providing the screening.
The story does not attempt to quantify the benefits of depression screening.
The story does not mention any possible downsides of depression screening. While there are few risks, some of the harms could include: missing cases of mild depression, stigma, mislabeling situational stress as an illness, not to mention barriers and difficulties involved in getting the appropriate follow-up care once diagnosed.
The story does mention that there is no direct evidence that screening for depression can improve outcomes. The story could have done more to describe the indirect evidence that support its use in heart patients.
The story does not exaggerate the seriousness or prevalence of depression. The story rightly points out that depression is more prevalent in people with heart disease.
The story quotes multiple experts.
The story mentions antidepressants, psychotherapy and excercise as possible treatments for depression.
Clearly depression screening is available but not as widely used as it should be in the context of heart disease patients.
Clearly depression screening is not new but it is increasingly being advocated in the context of heart patients.
Because the story quotes multiple experts, the reader can assume the story did not rely on a press release as the sole source of information.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
I miss @HealthNewsRevu popping up in my feed. Loved seeing this one today.
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/06/zombie-health-care-news/
#healthcare #journalism #ethics #conflictofinterest
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
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.
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