Articles
Media Study Critical of Science Reporting
June 1, 2000
The authors found that only 40% of news stories citing experts with financial ties to the drug being studied disclosed this potential conflict of interest.
"Major scientific journals require study authors to disclose industry links, as evidence suggests that commercial funding of research may lead to more favorable research outcomes," said Ray Moynihan, the study's lead author, and a journalist with the Sydney-based Australian Financial Review. "This standard might be adopted by the news media so the public can make more informed decisions on their health care."
The study found that of the 207 stories randomly selected, 40% did not offer any numerical analysis of a drug's benefits, and of those that did, most reported relative benefits, a practice that can be misleading. For example, reports on a new osteoporosis drug said that it would reduce hip fractures by 50%, a relative figure that exaggerates the power of the drug when placed next to its absolute benefit. In absolute terms, only 2% of untreated osteoporosis sufferers sustain hip fractures, meaning the new drug would reduce hip fractures from 2% to 1% of this affected population.
Further, 53% of the stories failed to discuss potential harms of the three medications included in the study: Each drug, while having many benefits, is associated with a range of potential adverse effects. And 70% of the stories failed to mention cost-effectiveness, an increasingly important measure of a drug's overall value to society.
"The media are a very important source of public health information," says Stephen Soumerai, a study co-author and Harvard Medical School professor of ambulatory care and prevention. "But stories on new drugs can be misleading when they fail to address potential conflicts of interest and don't discuss both relative and absolute benefits, risks, and costs. We hope this study provides some focus for journalists and editors who are continually striving for greater accuracy in medical coverage."
"The media perform a vital service to the public when they accurately report drug benefits and risks and when they identify potential conflicts of interest of experts quoted," says Lisa Bero, co-author of the study, an expert on industry-university relations. Bero is an associate professor of clinical pharmacy at the University of California, San Francisco.
Moynihan developed the study while serving as a Commonwealth Fund Harkness Fellow in Health Care Policy in the Department of Ambulatory Care and Prevention (DACP), a joint teaching and research department of Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care (HPHC), a Massachusetts-based managed care organization. Moynihan worked with senior researcher Stephen Soumerai, head of DACP's Drug Policy Research Group. Dennis Ross-Degnan of Harvard Medical School, Lisa Bero and Kirby Lee of UC, San Francisco, and David Henry of the University of Newcastle, Australia were also involved with the study's development, methodology, and conclusions.
The study's authors obtained stories on the coverage of the three drugs from 36 U.S. newspapers, including both large-circulation national papers and regional papers, between 1994 and 1998. Approximately 400 stories were reviewed. Television coverage from nightly network news and a 24-hour news station was included.
"The public increasingly wants and needs to make informed judgments about the use of new medications on the market," says Commonwealth Fund President Karen Davis. "This study shows that newspapers and television need to do a better job in reporting about both the benefits and the risks of new drugs."
This study was funded through the Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation supporting independent research on health and social issues, and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Foundation.
