This story reports on the movement in some states to make the new HPV vaccine a requirement for all young women. This short piece does a good job of representing the cost, novelty and availability of the vaccine, but fails to mention any harms of the vaccine and does not describe the strength of the evidence to support its use.
Furthermore, the story only quotes one expert, the father of a young girl being vaccinated who happens to be a physician. The story should have quoted additional experts or clinicians who could provide some additional perspective. Although the story does state that the vaccine could reduce HPV-related cervical cancer by 70%, this is not adequate quantification of the benefits. 70% of what? The reader should be informed whether HPV-related cancer accounts for a small or large amount of cancer cases.
Finally, the story avoids disease mongering by not exaggerating the annual number of deaths from cervical cancer. However, the story could have provided more context for these numbers – for example, how common HPV is and how rare it is for HPV infection to lead to cervical cancer.
The story does mention the cost of the vaccine. The story should have compared this cost to the alternative – regular pap smears. This is important information given that women will still need regular pap smears even if they are vaccinated.
Although the story does state that the vaccine could reduce HPV-related cervical cancer by 70%, this is not adequate quantification of the benefits. 70% of what? The reader should be informed whether HPV-related cancer accounts for a small or large amount of cancer cases.
The story does not describe any potential harms of the vaccine.
The story does not describe the strength of the available evidence to support the use of the vaccine.
The story does not exaggerate the annual number of deaths from cervical cancer. The story could have provided more context for these numbers – for example, how common HPV is and how rare it is for HPV infection to lead to cervical cancer.
The story only quotes one expert, the father of a young girl being vaccinated. The story should have quoted additional experts or clinicians who could provide some additional perspective.
The story does not mention any alternatives, most notably, regular pap smears.
The story states that the FDA only recently approved the vaccine.
The story clearly states that the vaccine was only recently approved and that this represents a novel approach to preventing HPV infection.
We can't be sure if the story relied 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