The story reports new findings which suggest a link between heavy multivitamin usage (defined as more than 7 doses per week) and advanced types of prostate cancer. The story makes it clear that the new findings don't prove this link because of the study design (observational vs. randomized controlled trial). Other criteria that were met include describing benefits in absolute terms, having multiple sources, and mentioning alternatives to heavy multivitamin use (assuming this is the treatment).
There is no background information on advanced prostate cancer given in the story. It would be helpful for viewers to know at least a relative estimate of how many men die of prostate cancer each year to get a sense for how big a problem this is or isn't.
Overall, though, this was a solid report – and in only 263 words.
The story does not mention costs of multivitamins, but it's safe to assume this is common knowledge.
The story provides absolute rates of excess numbers of deaths expected with heavy vitamin use.
If treatment is considered to be heavy multivitamin use, harms associated with this treatment are discussed, namely an increased risk of advanced types of prostate cancers. Other harms noted with specific vitamins such as A and E are also mentioned.
The article tells readers this is not a randomized controlled trial, where half the group would be randomly assigned to an intervention and half would not. It provides some context for interpreting the results, e.g. the study was not designed to prove vitamins affect cancer risk.
No overt disease-mongering.
The story does provide two independent sources of information.
If treatment is considered to be heavy multivitamin use, alternative options could be considered to be taking recommended doses of multivitamins and/or taking no multivitamins at all, which are discussed.
The article states that "studies show that 35% of Americans take vitamins" so we get a good feel for how available they are.
The story does not mention whether heavy vitamin use is new or not, but this doesn't seem applicable, given that heavy vitamin use isn't a standard treatment in the first place.
The story turned to two different sources from two different studies, so it is unlikely that it relied solely or largely on a news release.