The Use of Exaggerative Language in News Articles About Cystic Fibrosis Therapies : Exaggerative Language Describing Cystic Fibrosis Therapies

Exploring perceptions of and decision-making about CFTR modulators

INTRODUCTION

Cystic fibrosis (CF) treatment has increasingly focused on highly effective modulators. Despite measurable benefits of modulators, there is little guidance for CF care team members on providing education and support to patients regarding initiation of these therapies. We aimed to explore patient, caregiver, and clinician perceptions of modulators and influences on decisions about starting cystic fibrosis transmembrane regulator (CFTR) modulators.

METHODS

We conducted semistructured interviews with CF clinicians, adults with CF, and caregivers of children with CF. We reviewed audio recordings and coded responses to identify central themes.

RESULTS

We interviewed 8 CF clinicians, 9 adults with CF, and 11 caregivers of children with CF. Themes centered on emotional responses to modulator availability, influences on decision-making, concerns about side effects, impact of modulators on planning for the future, the benefits of the multidisciplinary CF care team in supporting treatment decisions, and the unique needs of people with CF who are not eligible for modulators. Clinicians described changes in conversations about modulators since the approval of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor, specifically greater willingness to prescribe with less nuanced conversations with patients and/or caregivers regarding their use.

CONCLUSION

Based on perspectives and experiences of CF clinicians, adults with CF, and caregivers of children with CF, we suggest clinicians approach conversations about CFTR modulators thoughtfully and thoroughly, utilizing the multidisciplinary model of CF care in exploring patient and caregiver emotions while filling in knowledge gaps, asking about treatment goals beyond potential clinical benefit, and having compassionate conversations with those who are ineligible for modulators.

Superlatives in news articles reporting non-FDA approved indications for use of cannabis and cannabis products with a focus on psychiatric disorders: a cross-sectional analysis

The exaggerated language used in news articles to describe the benefits of cannabis for conditions without FDA indications may mislead the public and healthcare providers. Thus, this study's objective was to investigate the use of exaggerated language in news articles focused on cannabis and cannabis-derived products. Using a cross-sectional study design, we searched Google News from March 3, 2020, and September 3, 2019 for 11 prespecified superlative terms along with the search terms "cannabis," "cannabidiol," "pot," "marijuana," "weed," and "CBD." Articles were evaluated for these exaggerative terms describing cannabis and cannabis-derived products along with additional news article characteristics. Screening and data extraction occurred in a masked, duplicate fashion. We identified 612 superlative terms in 374 different news articles focused on cannabis and cannabis-derived products from 262 news outlets. Only 26 (of 374, 7.0%) news articles provided clinical data. In total, superlative terms were used to describe cannabis and cannabis-derived products for the treatment of 91 medical conditions, of which only 2 are FDA approved. The most common psychiatric disorder indicated was anxiety disorder appearing in 88 news articles. Superlatives in news articles covering the treatment of psychiatric illnesses with cannabis and cannabis-derived products are common.

The presence of sensational language describing stem cell therapies in news articles: a cross-sectional analysis

Aim: News articles and their use of sensational language have the potential to influence health behaviors and decisions, thus the purpose of this study was to evaluate the use of sensational language (i.e., superlatives) describing stem cell therapies in public news articles. Materials & methods: In this study, we conducted a Google News search for news articles using superlatives to exaggerate the efficacy of stem cell therapies. Results: Our analysis included 262 news articles from 193 news outlets using 714 unique superlatives to describe stem cells. Health on the Net's Code of Conduct certification was applied to determine credibility of each site. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the need for improving news reporting surrounding stem cell research and therapies.

What's not in the news headlines or titles of Alzheimer disease articles? #InMice

There is increasing scrutiny around how science is communicated to the public. For instance, a Twitter account @justsaysinmice (with 70.4K followers in January 2021) was created to call attention to news headlines that omit that mice, not humans, are the ones for whom the study findings apply. This is the case of many headlines reporting on Alzheimer disease (AD) research. AD is characterized by a degeneration of the human brain, loss of cognition, and behavioral changes, for which no treatment is available. Around 200 rodent models have been developed to study AD, even though AD is an exclusively human condition that does not occur naturally in other species and appears impervious to reproduction in artificial animal models, an information not always disclosed. It is not known what prompts writers of news stories to either omit or acknowledge, in the story's headlines, that the study was done in mice and not in humans. Here, we raised the hypothesis that how science is reported by scientists plays a role on the news reporting. To test this hypothesis, we investigated whether an association exists between articles' titles and news' headlines regarding the omission, or not, of mice. To this end, we analyzed a sample of 623 open-access scientific papers indexed in PubMed in 2018 and 2019 that used mice either as models or as the biological source for experimental studies in AD research. We found a significant association (p < 0.01) between articles' titles and news stories' headlines, revealing that when authors omit the species in the paper's title, writers of news stories tend to follow suit. We also found that papers not mentioning mice in their titles are more newsworthy and significantly more tweeted than papers that do. Our study shows that science reporting may affect media reporting and asks for changes in the way we report about findings obtained with animal models used to study human diseases.