Note to our followers: Our nearly 13-year run of daily publication of new content on HealthNewsReview.org came to a close at the end of 2018. Publisher Gary Schwitzer and other contributors may post new articles periodically. But all of the 6,000+ articles we have published contain lessons to help you improve your critical thinking about health care interventions. And those will be still be alive on the site for a couple of years.
Read Original Story

Fox News story on air quality device reads like sponsored content

Smart air quality device and app helps you breathe easier

Our Review Summary

Face maskThe story describes a device and related mobile app, called Awair, that monitors air quality in the home and reports the information to users. The story offers little information about how the device could actually benefit users. More importantly, the story makes the air in our homes sound positively terrifying, using language that seems aimed at making homeowners scared of everything from dust to dirty carpets. The lack of quantified benefits — or any information about how accurate the device is — make this story read more like a paid promotion than a news article.

 

Why This Matters

Journalism is more than simply reciting facts. Reporters should ask questions, talk to independent sources, and help readers understand why (or if) something might be important to them. Reporters need to be skeptical critical thinkers, filtering through a sea of information before passing information on to readers in a context that helps the reader understand what’s going on. This story offers readers vague, scary information and points to a specific commercial product as a solution to a problem that readers may not know they had (if they have it at all). Some of the things mentioned in the story, like carbon monoxide poisoning, are legitimate concerns — but the story fails to mention options like carbon monoxide detectors, which would be less expensive options than the tech that the story does focus on. In short, consumers need sources of news that can offer reliable, thoughtful insight into health issues — not news stories that scare readers without offering context or detail.

Criteria

Does the story adequately discuss the costs of the intervention?

Satisfactory

The story states that the Awair app is free, but that each air monitoring device costs $199 dollars. Presumably, one would need multiple devices to monitor air quality throughout a residence.

Does the story adequately quantify the benefits of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Not Satisfactory

Not only are the benefits not quantified, but the potential benefits are not clearly defined at all. Instead, the story makes statements like “[Awair] can help you breathe easier by tracking air quality.” But what are the benefits of knowing the air quality levels via this device compared to other monitors? Or no monitors at all?

Does the story adequately explain/quantify the harms of the intervention?

Not Satisfactory

The concern here is that the story discusses a series of potential circumstances, many of which are either unlikely to harm human health or would only be potentially harmful to some people. For example, dry air is not a health concern for many people. This creates a potential “overdiagnosis” problem. In other words, using a product like Awair could potentially lead people to be concerned about circumstances that don’t actually threaten their health. This may result in unnecessary worry, stress or anxiety, or in causing people to spend money on treatments or technologies — such as humidifiers or air filtration system — that they don’t need. To be clear, there is a very real market for technologies like humidifiers and air filtration systems, but not everyone needs them. The story doesn’t address these issues at all. Also, potential harm could come from false positives in the tracking device, but that isn’t addressed, either.

Does the story seem to grasp the quality of the evidence?

Not Satisfactory

The headline states that this device “helps you breathe easier.” But other than an endorsement from the company that makes it, the story offers no evidence that the device works at all.

Does the story commit disease-mongering?

Not Satisfactory

Disease mongering is when a potential problem is exaggerated, or when a story describes a risk factor as if it’s a disease. And this story is guilty on both counts. For example, among the litany of possible air quality problems in a home, the story states “Different sources of air pollution in your home could include paints that release lead or volatile organic compounds (VOCs), carpets that harbor dirt, dust mites, and fungus and even nitrogen dioxide from gas stoves.” The story goes on to say “…but these aren’t the worst culprits” — yikes! In fact, the story tells readers, “Every room in your house could be susceptive to some form of an air pollutant.” Unfortunately, the story doesn’t tell readers why they should be worried about any of these things. Even when mentioning carbon monoxide poisoning, the story doesn’t explain why carbon monoxide poisoning is dangerous or how dangerous it is. In fact, the only air quality issue for which the story articulates any specific health risk is dry air, when the story tells readers that low humidity can make asthma worse or exacerbate nasal infections in some people.

Does the story use independent sources and identify conflicts of interest?

Satisfactory

This is satisfactory, but barely. The story does quote a physician with no obvious ties to Awair about how air quality may affect health. What’s not clear is why the reporter chose to spoke to the physician, who specializes in rheumatism, arthritis and related ailments. More importantly, the story is missing any independent sources who can weigh in on Awair, or how effective it may be at reducing any kind of health risk.

Does the story compare the new approach with existing alternatives?

Not Satisfactory

The story does not talk about any of the other air quality monitoring devices that are on the market, at all. And there are a lot of them. We’ll come back to this under “Novelty.”

Does the story establish the availability of the treatment/test/product/procedure?

Satisfactory

It’s clear from the story that the device and app are already available.

Does the story establish the true novelty of the approach?

Not Satisfactory

According to the story, “Awair is the first smart air quality device that monitors, analyzes and provides feedback to improve the air you breathe.” Yet here’s an online article from 2014 titled “6 Smart Interior Air Quality Monitors You Should Buy For Your Home” — not to mention this or this. That’s not to say that any of these products work, or that we can offer insights into how well they work relative to Awair. It does drive home, however, that Awair may not be as novel as the story makes it out to be. For readers to truly understand what makes Awair different (if it is different), the story would have had to articulate its novelty in the context of a marketplace that is crowded with air quality monitoring devices.

Does the story appear to rely solely or largely on a news release?

Satisfactory

The story does not appear to stem from a specific news release.

Total Score: 4 of 10 Satisfactory

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.