Cancer in the news: Bias and quality in media reporting of cancer research

Reading Between the Tabloids: An Objective Analysis of the Quality and Readability of Patient Encountered Online Material for Face Transplantation

Face transplantation is a highly sensationalized procedure in the media. The purpose of this study is to assess the content and readability of online materials that prospective patients/public encounter regarding face transplantation. A search for face transplantation was performed on Google. Sites were categorized under 3 groups: established face transplant programs, informational third-party sources (eg, Wikipedia), and news article/tabloid sites. Each site was assessed for readability using 6 different readability metrics, while quality was assessed utilizing JAMA benchmark criteria and DISCERN instrument. One-way ANOVA with post hoc Tukey's multiple comparisons test was used for analysis. News sources were significantly easier to read than face transplant program sites (10.4 grade reading level vs. 12.4). For the JAMA benchmark, face transplant programs demonstrated the lowest average score relative to third-party sites, and news sources (2.05 vs. 2.91 vs. 3.67, respectively; P<0.001), but had significantly greater DISCERN scores than news sources (53.50 vs. 45.83, P=0.019). News sources were significantly more accessible, readable, and offered greater transparency of authorship compared with reputable sources, despite their lack of expertise on face transplantation. Face transplant programs should update their websites to ensure readability and accessibility of the information provided to the public.

Media coverage of cancer therapeutics: A review of literature

BACKGROUND

Information and stories about cancer treatment are increasingly available to patients and the general public through lay media, websites, blogs and social media. While these resources may be helpful to supplement information provided during physician-patient discussions, there is growing concern about the extent to which media reports accurately reflect advances in cancer care. This review aimed to understand the landscape of published research which has described media coverage of cancer treatments.

METHODS

This literature review included peer-reviewed primary research articles that reported how cancer treatments are portrayed in the lay media. A structured literature search of Medline, EMBASE and Google Scholar was performed. Potentially eligible articles were reviewed by three authors for inclusion. Three reviewers, each independently reviewed eligible studies; discrepancies were resolved by consensus.

RESULTS

Fourteen studies were included. The content of the eligible studies reflected two thematic categories: articles that reviewed specific drugs/cancer treatment (n = 7) and articles that described media coverage of cancer treatment in general terms (n = 7). Key findings include the media's frequent and unfounded use of superlatives and hype for new cancer treatments. Parallel to this, media reports over-emphasize potential treatment benefits and do not present a balanced view of risks of side effects, cost, and death. At a broad level, there is emerging evidence that media reporting of cancer treatments may directly impact patient care and policy-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This review identifies problems in current media reports of new cancer advances - especially with undue use of superlatives and hype. Given the frequency with which patients access this information and the potential for it to influence policy, there is a need for additional research in this space in addition to educational interventions with health journalists. The oncology community - scientists and clinicians - must ensure that we are not contributing to these problems.

Quality of content reporting on two major oncology media websites: OncLive and Targeted Oncology

INTRODUCTION

Oncology media websites such as Oncology Live (OncLive) and Targeted Oncology (TargetedOnc) play an important role in the dissemination of oncology news to patients and clinicians; however, the quality of the content on these websites has not been assessed. Our study aimed to analyze content from these websites and assess financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) amongst speakers interviewed on these websites.

METHODS

Articles published on OncLive and TargetedOnc during October 2021, were prospectively captured and analyzed. The primary outcome of our study was the quality of oncology news reporting in OncLive and TargetedOnc. We assessed the FCOI amongst speakers using data from Open Payments.

RESULTS

We examined 196 articles (OncLive 108, TargetedOnc 88). Limitations of cited research were reported in 7% (7/105) of OncLive and zero TargetedOnc articles. Benefit and risks in absolute numbers were reported in 28% (28/99) of OncLive and 16% (7/45) of TargetedOnc articles. Independent experts were quoted in 47% (51/108) and 51% (44/86) of the OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively (Table 3). Pharmaceutical executives were quoted in 18% (20/108) and 11% (10/88) of OncLive and TargetedOnc articles, respectively. No FCOI disclosures were listed or reported for any articles. The mean general payment received from industry by United States physicians was $63,861 in 2019 and $39,639 in 2020.

CONCLUSION

Our study demonstrates low quality and potentially biased reporting of oncology news on OncLive and TargetedOnc. Careful safeguards, oversight and reporting of relevant FCOI are needed to maintain the quality and transparency of content being provided.

Mindful mindfulness reporting: Media portrayals of scientific evidence for meditation mobile apps

Promoting mental health is a major global challenge. As mindfulness meditation apps can help maintain and restore good mental health, it is important to understand how their efficacy and safety are portrayed in the media. This study systematically evaluates whether evidence from academic research is used to communicate the health effects of two popular mindfulness apps, Calm and Smiling Mind. A scoping review mapped research findings from 16 relevant articles, and a media analysis examined the types of evidence used in news reporting. Analysing 105 news articles revealed that 98% did not use evidence from academic research on app-based meditation to support health claims. Only 28.5% of articles included advice from a health expert, and 9.5% mentioned potential risks and alternative treatments. Stronger evidence-based reporting on the health effects of mindfulness apps is needed to enable people to make more informed decisions for their health and wellbeing.

Patterns of Healthcare Utilization Leading to Diagnosis of Young-Onset Colorectal Cancer (yCRC): Population-Based Case-Control Study

Background: The increasing risk of young-onset colorectal cancer (yCRC) in adults < 50 years has called for better understanding of patients’ pathways to diagnosis. This study evaluated patterns of healthcare utilization before diagnosis of yCRC. Methods: Using linked administrative health databases in British Columbia, Canada, we identified yCRC cases and cancer-free controls matched (1:10) on age, sex, and healthcare utilization. The index date was the date of diagnosis for yCRC cases and matched date for controls. Outpatient visits, emergency department visits, and hospitalizations over a 5-year prediagnosis period (e.g., year-1 to year-5) were compared using descriptive statistics and Poisson regression models. Results: The study included 2567 yCRC cases (49.6% females, 43.0 ± 5.8 years) and 25,455 controls (48.6% females, 43.0 ± 5.8 years). We observed an increasing number of outpatient visits from prediagnosis year-5 (median = 3) to year-1 (median = 8) for yCRC cases. Among controls, outpatient visits were stable and did not have a pattern of increase. Poisson regression models indicated higher adjusted count ratios for outpatient visits for yCRC cases compared to controls in the year before diagnosis (1.11; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.15). In the year before diagnosis, 35.1% of yCRC cases had potentially related visits to CRC (e.g., nausea, vomiting) and 16.9% had potentially red flag visits (e.g., gastrointestinal hemorrhage or iron deficiency anemia). Conclusions: Using population-based data, we found that individuals with yCRC did not have higher healthcare utilization than individuals without in the prediagnosis period except for the year before diagnosis.

Relationship between lay and expert perceptions of COVID-19 vaccine development timelines in Canada and USA

Objectives

Compare lay expectations of medical development to those of experts in the context of SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development.

Methods

A short online survey of experts and lay people measuring when participants believe important vaccine milestones would occur and how likely potential setbacks were. Samples of US and Canadian lay people recruited through Qualtrics. The expert sample was created through a contact network in vaccine development and supplemented with corresponding authors of recent scholarly review articles on vaccine development.

Results

In aggregate, lay people gave responses that were within 3 months of experts, tending to be later than experts for early milestones and earlier for later milestones. Median lay best estimates for when a vaccine would be available to the public were 08/2021 and 09/2021 for the US and Canadian samples, compared with 09-10/2021 for the experts. However, many individual lay responses showed more substantial disagreement with expert opinions, with 54% of lay best estimates of when a vaccine would be available to the public being before the median expert soonest estimate or after the median expert latest estimate. Lay people were much more pessimistic about vaccine development encountering setbacks than experts (median probability 59% of boxed warning compared with only 30% for experts). Misalignment between layperson and expert expectations was not explained by any demographic variables collected in our survey.

Conclusion

Median lay expectations were generally similar to experts. At the individual level, however, lay people showed substantial variation with many believing milestones would occur much sooner than experts. Lay people were in general much more pessimistic about the prospect of setbacks than were experts.

Cancer-related stigma in the USA and Israeli mass media: an exploratory study of structural stigma

PURPOSE

Cancer is considered a stigmatized condition in many cultures. One key cultural site that produces illness-related structural stigma is mass media. This study explored the social construction of cancer-related stigma in mass media during the time of COVID-19. Specifically, we compared how cancer-related stigma is constructed in two contexts: American and Israeli mass media.

METHODS

Two samples were drawn: all articles that mentioned cancer and published in a 4-month period in USA Today (N = 117) and Israel Today (N = 108). Inductive Thematic Analysis was used to analyze the articles.

RESULTS

Three similar themes were identified in the samples: "the trivialization of cancer," "cancer as metaphor," and the "the war against cancer." In both samples, people with cancer were depicted as heroic. Despite the similarities in themes, how each theme was constructed reflected sociocultural differences between the two samples.

CONCLUSIONS

There appear to be presented universal mechanisms of cancer-related stigma in the media, alongside cultural differences in how they are employed and constructed.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

The results stress the importance of debunking cancer-related stigma in the media and elsewhere. Cancer survivors and their families, reporters, researchers, and other stakeholders in the two studied countries should collaborate to devise culturally informed guidelines for reporting and writing about cancer.