This piece was a story about the importance of adequate folic acid intake to reduce the risk of certain birth defects. While it did mention the amount of folic acid that is the goal, it could have done a better job of providing specific information that viewers could use to insure that they attained their folic acid intake goal. This is especially the case as the piece mentioned that recent studies have shown that only about a third of women have sufficient folic acid intake, as well the fact the number of women with adequate folic acid intake is decreasing.
There was no mention of costs in this piece. It would have been very easy to note that it is CHEAP!
That adequate folic acid intake reduced risk (a 28% reduction in neural tube defects; 40% reduced risk of cleft lip or palate) was presented as relative risk only. Especially as these are both rare birth defects, the change in numbers that potentially results from insuring adequate folic acid intake is small. The context of absolute risk reduction was important, but missing.
There was no discussion of harms or lack of harms that are associated with adequate folic acid intake in women of child bearing age.
This piece mentioned one study that found inadequate folic acid consumption prior to conception was associated with an additional birth defect. However, the piece discussed the long standing body of evidence of benefit from adequate folic acid consumption that was associated with decreased risk of neural tube defects.
While this piece did not exactly engage in disease mongering, it provided information about yet another birth defect for which adequate intake of folic acid reduced the risk even though this information does not affect the long standing recommendation for folic acid intake. The problem is that it failed to note that the incidence of cleft palate and cleft lip are rare.
There were no comments from experts in B vitamins or prenatal development. We really don't what sources were used.
Recommendations of adequate folic acid intake were presented. The treatment options, obtaining folic acid from dietary sources or from supplements were both presented.
This story discussed folic acid supplements, but would have been better if it had explicitly mentioned that these are available over the counter. The story mentioned multivitamins, but would have been better had it included the caveat that consumers need to check the label to determine whether the product contained 400 mcg. The story also discussed food sources (leafy green vegetables, liver, dried beans, citrus fuits, whole grain bread and cereals); however this was somewhat incomplete because without mention of the amounts of folic acid or the % of the recommended 400 mcg they might get in a single serving a person does not know how to use these foods to insure sufficient folic acid intake.
Including guidance, such as reading labels, would have made this story more useful for the viewer interested in meeting the recommended intake.
Although presenting some new data on a different type of birth defect, the story was clear that the importance of adequate folic acid consumption is not new.
We can't be sure if the story relied solely or largely 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.