More fallout from the JAMA study on the media reporting of medical studies.
One reason is that reporters are not often versed on health care nuances. Matthew Mintz comes up with other reasons, such as the focus on negative headlines that tend to sell more papers, and the sheer volume of studies to interpret:
The public is inundated on a daily basis with medical information that is not always reported accurately, that often takes a negative spin . . . that leave the public and patients confused, and in many cases lead patients to distrust any product and even their own doctors.
This is one reason to read physician blogs, which can comment on the medical news from a more informed stance.
Related posts:
- The media influence on patients and medical stories
- Reporting medical studies
- How will the media influence health reform?
- The controversy of no-consent studies
- Stopping drug studies
- More medical errors
- A 10-year old girl with breast cancer, how much media coverage should she receive?
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 1 comment }
There’s also Gary Schwitzer’s good work here: http://www.healthnewsreview.org/
He takes the time to rate the accuracy of health news reporting. A great service that more docs/patients should know about!
Comments on this entry are closed.