This story describes a study comparing two groups of people with high blood pressure who either received standard online information on lowering blood pressure, or “e-Counseling,” a progressive, more interactive online program that closely mimicked face-to-face counseling.
The story had many strong points–it provided specifics on how much blood pressure was lowered in both the control group and the treatment group–and it explained the details of the study’s design, including limitations. We also appreciated the discussion of how common high blood pressure is and why it’s so important to treat.
That said, the story would have been stronger had it provided more information on when this intervention might become available to the public, and how much it might cost.
High blood pressure is serious problem for a multitude of people and the story rightfully points out that one in three Americans suffer from it. Therefore, any new treatments–particularly those that involve non-drug interventions–are likely to be of wide interest to many people. News stories have a duty to make it clear when these treatments will be ready for primetime.
The story didn’t mention the estimated cost; we think that would have been a useful detail to both patients and healthcare providers interested in offering this program.
The story makes it clear what the quantified benefits are: Participants in the e-Counseling program saw a 10 mm Hg reduction in systolic blood pressure (the upper number) while the control group saw a reduction of 6 mm Hg.
What would have been useful to add: That the difference–a decrease of 4 mm HG –is clinically meaningful and would provide some health benefits, even though it doesn’t sound like much of a change from the control group.
The story makes no mention of harms that might arise from the use of web-based tools and videos, but it’s hard to envision how they could harm study participants.
The story provides adequate details for readers to discern the quality of evidence. This paragraph in particular is helpful:
The randomized, double-blind study included 264 participants with an average age of 58, of whom 58 percent were women. The participants were divided into two groups, one of which received weekly emails with generic information about healthy living that is good for the heart and for reducing high blood pressure, and the other group received weekly emails with links to interactive tools and online multimedia, such as videos of people diagnosed with high blood pressure who made lifestyle changes. These tools were carefully chosen to increase in knowledge about and motivation to maintain a heart-healthy lifestyle.
We were also impressed to see a discussion on the limitations of the research:
“One of the caveats of the study was that participants were highly motivated people looking for ways to cope with and decrease their blood pressure. Participants were also largely white and well-educated, with most having a postsecondary education, so the results of the study might not be generalize well to other groups.”
The story does a good job of establishing how prevalent this condition is, and why new interventions are a good thing:
High blood pressure affects 1 in every 3 adults in the United States, according to a fact sheet by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In 2013, high blood pressure was the major cause behind 360,000 deaths in the United States. Reduction in high blood pressure has added health benefits because it can potentially reduce the likelihood of heart attacks, strokes, chronic heart failure and kidney disease.
The story includes quotes from two experts who spoke at the conference session where this research was presented. They do not appear to have any conflicts of interest. However, it’s unclear if the reporter interviewed the sources directly, or used statements they made to the entire audience at the session. The former is more suitable for obtaining comments that pertain to a lay audience like the Post’s.
Because the participants were already taking high blood pressure medication, which would be the typical alternative to compare this non-drug intervention against, we’ll rate this N/A.
The story doesn’t address the availability of the web-based program. Because high blood pressure is so common, we think it would have been useful for the story to address when or if this technology will become widely available.
The story didn’t explain how unique this treatment was. Is this the first of its kind? Or are similar models already available? The news release states it’s “the first randomized, double-blinded trial of an online behavioral intervention for high blood pressure.” This story would have been stronger if it had included a line or two establishing if this is indeed the case.
The story includes information not found in the news release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Puleeeeease... this 'game changer' weight loss drug causes more nausea and vomiting than a placebo. Some game, some change. My friend Gary would spank you for using the eighth word medical reporters should never, ever use. @garyschwitzer @thackerpd
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/toolkit/just-journalists-writing-tips-case-studies/7-words-and-more-you-shouldnt-use-in-medical-news/ https://twitter.com/OttawaCitizen/status/1361426796126830597
A scary @statnews Op-Ed warns that govt attempts to rein in Pharma may cut off access to "life-changing" drugs.
It takes @garyschwitzer to let us know: the author spent 10 years as Pfizer's public-policy chief. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1360325022578053123
.@TranspariMED criticizes STAT op-ed for not disclosing pharma funding of author’s institute - similar to criticism we’ve made of STAT op-eds in the past. @transparify @ThinkTankWatch @icer_review https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2021/02/transparency-watchdog-criticizes-stats-non-disclosure-on-pro-pharma-op-ed/
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