This story made the key point that CNN and the Washington Post failed to communicate in their competing coverage: “This study … did not prove that omega-3 fatty acids prevent mental decline, merely that there may be an association between consumption of fatty acids and brain health.”
Consumers have only so much capacity to implement behavior changes to improve their health. By critically evaluating the evidence, stories can help consumers focus on the changes that are most likely to be beneficial.
We know that people get easily overwhelmed by health claims and end up thinking that much of it is hype and doesn’t matter anyway. If we are cautious about reporting on observational studies, it improves consumer understanding, critical analysis, and credibility of science and of journalism.
The cost of fish is not in question, although a word about the cost of fish oil supplements would not have been inappropriate.
Although we think readers will come away with the correct bottom line message on this study, we’re going to rate this criterion unsatisfactory, for two reasons:
The harms of eating fish are not in question, although there is some concern that certain species high in mercury can be harmful for pregnant women and children.
This is where the HealthDay coverage shined. In addition to cautioning that the study couldn’t prove that omega-3 fatty acids prevent mental decline, the story had a nice discussion of the limitations that apply to this study and other observational studies:
The story also mentioned that a clinical trial of high and low omega-3 intake would help prove whether there’s a beneficial effect.
The story quotes an independent expert, and there were no conflicts that should have been identified.
There was no discussion of other habits or behaviors, such as exercise and mental stimulation, that are associated with maintenance of cognitive function with age. The story also did not mention other potential sources of omega-3 fatty acids, as CNN did.
The availability of fish isn’t in question.
The story nods to previous research suggesting that fish consumption might have benefits for the aging brain.
The story was not based on a press 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 (2)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Henry
March 5, 2012 at 11:03 amThere may be some harm in eating some fish from some markets these days. Mercury contamination, for one, comes to mind.
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