While ostensibly about the impact birth control pill use had on muscle mass development, the segment failed to provide information about the degree to which muscle development was affected. The benefit of the treatment, mentioned in the very opening of the piece, was avoidance of a baby-bump. The story did not include any information about how successful ‘the pill’ is at baby-bump prevention. The story then went on to talk about other potential side effects from the use of birth control pills and other potential harms that one ought to discuss with one’s doctor. However – no attempt was made to enlighten viewers about what they might be.
All in all, a vague and vapid piece.
There was no discusion of cost. While the main subject of the piece was about a negative effect, since there was also discussion about benefits, cost would seem to be germane to the discussion.
The benefit of the treatment, mentioned in the very opening of the piece, was avoidance of a baby-bump. The story did not include any information about how successful ‘the pill’ is at baby-bump prevention.
In addition, air time was spent explaining that ‘the pill’ decreased the risk for ovarian/uterine cancer. However viewers were not provided with information about how common these cancers were or the extent to which their risk was diminished for individuals who take the pill. So it was not possible to watch this segment and gain insight about how valuable this benefit might be.
The medical correspondent mentioned that there were lots of risk-benefits from the use of this treatment and that "people need to know about them". However – no attempt was made to enlighten viewers about what they might be.
The story appeared to be about how ‘the pill’ could interfere with development of muscle mass. However – other than informing viewers that they could still increase muscle mass when taking ‘the pill’ if they only worked harder – it failed to provide viewers with an idea of the extent to which mucle mass development might be compromised.
The medical correspondent explained to the interviewer that the information she was discussing involved the results of a new study. However there was no attempt to provide information about the nature of the study or the availabilty of the results of the study so that viewers might be able to assess the significance of the new information.
"Fighting the battle of the bulge" – is this a feared medical condition? And were they talking about added weight or a failure to build additional muscle mass? As the story failed to provide any sort of quantification of how much added ‘bulge’ might be anticipated based on the use of birth control pills, this could be construed as disease mongering.
We can’t be sure what the sources were. No one was interviewed. Only a talking-head TV doc appearing in the studio.
While recommending a time consuming conversation with one’s doctor, this piece did not include information about treatment options.
While it is true that birth control pills are commonly refered to as ‘the pill’, it would seem necessary to actually specify that the story was about birth control pills. As much as our reviewers scrutinize health care news every day, we had to think twice or thrice before really understanding that the piece was about oral contraceptives. And although an on-screen graphic provided a glimpse of packaging for one month’s worth of birth control pills, the story actually never stated what type of pill it was about. It wasn’t clear whether the story was about a morning after pill or a birth control pill – nor was it clear whether the pill in question was available over the counter or by prescription.
Hard to say how the story described the noveltly of the treatment. On one hand – we the viewer are so familar with the pill that we all are assumed to know it without even mentioning its name. On the other hand, as there are different formulations of birth control pills available – it is difficult to know if the story was about one that is new or one that has been available for years.
We can’t be sure what the story relied on for information. (The ‘study’ discussed was actually a presentation at a recent meeting of the American Physiological Society)
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
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