This is a bite-size but informative story from Reuters Health reporting new research that assessed the confidence levels and feelings of embarrassment in people helping melanoma survivors to look for suspicious moles in hard-to-see body parts.
One downside to this story is the lack of independent sources. Without a third-party opinion, it is hard to understand how important this new research is.
Over a million people in the United States alone are at high risk of secondary melanomas after having treatment to remove a malignant tumor. Barriers to finding secondary tumors, such as feelings of embarrassment or a lack of confidence in people helping melanoma survivors with skin exams, are important to find out about and mitigate.
Although presumably there is a cost associated with training people to recognize melanomas, having a partner help check for suspicious moles can be assumed to be cost-free.
The research letter in JAMA Dermatology used survey questions to assess the confidence and embarrassment that partners felt when helping to search for cancerous moles. The story from Reuters reported the survey results, though it didn’t quantify them:
Among people who received the skin exam training, the researchers found a steep increase in their confidence at performing skin exams between the start of the study and four months later.
“Their confidence level goes up and plateaus at eight to 12 months, and it doesn’t go down,” said Robinson.
The exams didn’t become more embarrassing or less comfortable, either.
But, we’re left to wonder: How much did their confidence levels go up? When the study or news release doesn’t spell that out clearly (nor use laymen’s terms), it’s up to the reporter to find out and let readers know. We recognize this isn’t easy to do on deadline, but it would have made an average story stand above the competition.
Having a partner check for melanomas doesn’t have immediate harms, so we’ll rate this N/A. It could be harmful if a person relies too heavily on a friend’s assessment versus a physician’s though.
The study is a straightforward survey of people’s feelings of confidence and embarrassment, with appropriate statistical analysis applied to the results. There is little for the writer to interrogate in the quality of the evidence, though perhaps it would have been useful to hear from an expert in patient psychology to understand how these kind of surveys relate to real-life health behaviors.
We also liked how the story included this caveat:
Bringing this program into the mainstream presents some challenges, however. Each person in the study was trained on how to find melanoma and attended booster sessions every four months.
“We are now trying to see if people can learn, perform and have continuing confidence without the physician reinforcement,” said Robinson.
It is well established that early detection of secondary melanomas leads to improved chances of survival.
The story could have stressed that it still remains to be fully determined what sorts of follow-up can most efficiently lead to early detection of secondary melanomas. Seeing a dermatologist every week might work, but is unlikely to be necessary. Supplementing doctor visits with self or partner skin examinations has evidence of likely benefit in other studies.
The only person quoted in the story is the lead author of the study. It is always important to hear from at least one independent expert in order to put new results the views of researchers into context. Without hearing from a dispassionate third party, it is hard to know how important this new research actually is.
Early on in the news story, the writer mentions that without a partner to assist in skin examinations, patients are told to use mirrors to check out hard-to-reach body parts.
The availability of having a partner help with mole-spotting would seem to depend on the individual patient. The writer does mention that bringing a partner program into standard practice “presents some challenges” due to the need for training, and that the researchers are looking at ways to help people learn to identify melanomas without reinforcement by physicians. This is enough to earn a satisfactory rating.
The newsworthy results in this study are the measurements of confidence levels and embarrassment among partners helping with self examinations for melanomas. The story does acknowledge this here:
The researchers previously found that skin cancer survivors and their partners could be trained to spot potentially cancerous moles by doing skin exams. The new report shows that during the two years, those same people had increasing confidence in their skills, with no increase in embarrassment or discomfort.
However, this is proceeded by a sentence that states melanoma survivors “may want to enlist partners to help search their bodies for suspicious looking moles,” suggesting that this is a new approach. In reality, this research focused on a psychological aspect of a previously established practice. It is OK for some science to be looking at small details rather than looking for big breakthroughs, but the news story should not puff up small results for big headlines.
A news release from Northwestern University is likely the spark responsible for the news story, but the writer has clearly contacted the lead researcher independently and included information beyond what is written in the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Following a shift in journalism’s business model, a diverse ecosystem of publications, many covering science, has sprung up online. This has made it more difficult to sort out what qualifies as journalism, what doesn’t, and whether the public even cares.
https://t.co/qO2a27FiSe
Researchers and journalists do the public a grave disservice when they spin health study results to make them appear safer or more effective than warranted, says @HealthNewsRevu founder @garyschwitzer https://t.co/QIKsRbP6Ed
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