As the ratings and total score show, this newspaper article on virtual reality therapy fails to apply several best practices of health journalism.
To call out only the two most significant failures:
The reporter makes no attempt to gather independent research on the treatment’s safety or effectiveness, which conditions and populations it is more successful for, etc. Given the fact that the company that makes this information available on its website–and that other recent press reports include some of this information–this reflects very badly on this story.
The story makes no mention of costs and coverage for the treatment. For a story about an exotic new technology that might replace a standard practice whose cost is well established, this is inexplicable.
The story just didn’t ask enough tough important questions.
VR therapy is a fascinating topic. It is being used and researched quite a bit with war veterans and other people with PTSD.
The subject should be investigated and the public informed. This story fails to accomplish either.
The article fails to report the cost of either virtual reality therapy or the equipment itself. It does not indicate whether the treatment is covered by insurance.
The story makes no attempt to quantify the benefits of VR therapy either alone or in comparison to exposure therapy or other treatments.
The reporter does not cite potential harms from the therapy, which would include not working despite a presumbably large outlay of money.
Whether VR therapy carries risks of headache, blurred vision, balance problems, etc. is not reported.
The article cites no scientific evidence that shows virtual reality therapy is either effective or safe.
This is surprising, since the company that makes the equipment lists numerous studies about virtual reality therapy on its website.
While the story uses an anecdote of an unusually phobic flyer who experiences some relief, the story as a whole does not exaggerate the prevalence or severity of phobias. Patients requiring treatment can indeed be debilitated by phobias.
The story quotes a clincial practioner of VR therapy and the company that makes the software.
No independent sources or reports are consulted.
The story at least briefly describes conventional exposure therapy, the most common intervention.
The article does not indicate where virtual reality therapy is available aside from the university clinic featured.
The story itself has a New Frontier feel to it, but the reporting does make clear that VR has been in development for over a decade and is becoming more widely used.
We can’t be sure if the story relied solely or largely on a news release.
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
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