This piece reports on two recent studies that highlight the high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency and its associated health risks among U.S. children and adolescents. While the findings suggest that 70% of U.S. children and adolescents do not get enough vitamin D, the news piece blurs the line between deficiency and insufficiency, which are clearly defined in the studies. It would have been more informative to tell viewers that 9% of the study population was found to be vitamin D deficient, while 61% was insufficient. Making the assumption that insufficiency is directly related to disease is incorrect, and amounts to disease mongering.
The story also failed to present data regarding the link between inadequate vitamin D intake and cardiovascular disease. Both studies indicated that additional research is needed to confirm the association; however, this was not mentioned by the reporter. This story would have also been strengthened, had it included the potential harms of taking too much vitamin D.
This story did not discuss the cost of vitamin D supplements but we can assume that most people know the ballpark costs, so we rule this criterion not applicable in this case.
No data from the studies were provided on the association between inadequate vitamin D intake and cardiovascular diseases.
These studies did not report on the harms of vitamin D, but it is worthwhile to mention that excessive intake of vitamin D supplements can have adverse effects, including nausea, vomiting, constipation and weakness. It may also lead to toxic levels of calcium in the bloodstream, causing serious health problems. Additionally, information about how to safely get enough sun exposure to convert vitamin D to its active form would have been helpful.
The study briefly describes the methodology, but fails to mention the study demographics or study limitations, such as lack of sun exposure information and other confounders. While the results of the studies show a correlation between vitamin D insufficiency and cardiovascular disease, additional well-designed trials are needed to confirm these finding.
This story did not make a distinction between vitamin D insufficiency and vitamin D deficiency. That’ disease-mongering. We actually don’t know if insufficient vitamin D status will result in health problems for many people who have it.
Several experts not involved in the studies were interviewed for this story. Of the three TV network stories we reviewed on this same topic, ABC was the only one to include independent voices.
There are no alternatives to vitamin D, but the story discussed its main sources, including dairy, sunlight and supplements.
Sources of vitamin D are widely available, and the story touches on several sources.
Other studies have also found a high prevalence of vitamin D deficiency in children and adolescents, but this U.S. study is the largest to date with over 6000 participants. This story – appropriately – did not try to make the new research sound like it was a novel finding, but rather gave a broader scope.
Because several experts not involved in the study were interviewed, it’s safe to assume the story did not rely on a news release.
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.