Medicine and the media: Medical experts' problems and solutions while working with journalists

Quality of science journalism in the age of Artificial Intelligence explored with a mixed methodology

Science journalists, traditionally, play a key role in delivering science information to a wider audience. However, changes in the media ecosystem and the science-media relationship are posing challenges to reliable news production. Additionally, recent developments such as ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence (AI) more generally, may have further consequences for the work of (science) journalists. Through a mixed-methodology, the quality of news reporting was studied within the context of AI. A content analysis of media output about AI (news articles published within the time frame 1 September 2022-28 February 2023) explored the adherence to quality indicators, while interviews shed light on journalism practices regarding quality reporting on and with AI. Perspectives from understudied areas in four European countries (Belgium, Italy, Portugal, and Spain) were included and compared. The findings show that AI received continuous media attention in the four countries. Furthermore, despite four different media landscapes, the reporting in the news articles adhered to the same quality criteria such as applying rigour, including sources of information, accessibility, and relevance. Thematic analysis of the interview findings revealed that impact of AI and ChatGPT on the journalism profession is still in its infancy. Expected benefits of AI related to helping with repetitive tasks (e.g. translations), and positively influencing journalistic principles of accessibility, engagement, and impact, while concerns showed fear for lower adherence to principles of rigour, integrity and transparency of sources of information. More generally, the interviewees expressed concerns about the state of science journalism, including a lack of funding influencing the quality of reporting. Journalists who were employed as staff as well as those who worked as freelancers put efforts in ensuring quality output, for example, via editorial oversight, discussions, or memberships of associations. Further research into the science-media relationship is recommended.

Extraordinary claims in the literature on high-intensity interval training (HIIT): III. Critical analysis of four foundational arguments from an interdisciplinary lens

Kinesiology aspires to be an integrated, interdisciplinary field that studies human movement from multiple perspectives. However, the main societal deliverables of the field, namely exercise prescriptions and physical activity recommendations, still reflect fragmentation, placing more emphasis on physiological outcomes than on behavioral and other considerations. Recently, researchers have called for the introduction of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIIT) to the domain of public health, based on the argument that HIIT can maximize fitness and health benefits for a fraction of the time recommended by the prevailing model of physical activity in public-health guidelines. Here, we show that an unintended side-effect of arguments underpinning the implementation of HIIT in the domain of public health might have been the exacerbation of segmentation. To highlight the value of interdisciplinarity, four foundational claims in support of HIIT are critiqued by tapping into cognate literatures: (1) the primary reason people do not exercise is lack of time, (2) HIIT is relevant to public health, (3) HIIT is being proposed as merely another option, so there is no basis for controversy, and (4) HIIT is safe and well tolerated. These claims are contradicted by credible lines of evidence. To improve the accuracy and effectiveness of its public claims, kinesiology should remain committed to the ideals of integration and interdisciplinarity.

Changes in Attitudes and Beliefs Concerning Vaccination and Influenza Vaccines between the First and Second COVID-19 Pandemic Waves: A Longitudinal Study

Perceptions of the risks of vaccine-preventable diseases and preventive behaviors change over time. The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic may have modified laypeople's attitudes towards routine vaccinations. In this longitudinal study, we aimed to assess changes in attitudes and beliefs concerning (influenza) vaccines between the first and second COVID-19 pandemic waves. A total of 1979 participants completed both 2020 and 2021 surveys. After one year, more interviewees agreed that vaccines were fundamental and should be mandatory (77.3% vs. 75.0%). Analogously, willingness to undergo influenza vaccination increased (p < 0.001) from 44.1% to 48.6%. This increase was seen in subjects aged ≥35 years. Previous influenza vaccinations, receipt of a COVID-19 vaccine, positive attitudes towards (influenza) vaccination, male sex, and older age were the main correlates of willingness to receive the 2021/22 influenza vaccine. Totals of 12.6% and 11.8% had no intention to receive the next seasonal influenza and COVID-19 vaccines, respectively. Most respondents favored a hypothetical combined influenza/COVID-19 vaccine (73.7%) or influenza and COVID-19 vaccine co-administration (67.5%). In Italy, influenza and COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy and refusal are common. Effective public health strategies to pursue higher uptake of both vaccines are urgently needed.

Journalists' views on media coverage of medical tests and overdiagnosis: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVE

Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests.

DESIGN

Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia.

RESULTS

This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting.

CONCLUSIONS

Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.