A Media Biopsy: Examining the Quality of Cancer Reporting in Australia, 1997 and 2017

This article investigates the quality of cancer reporting from a time of prosperity to a time of austerity for the press. Australia is a useful case study because of its concentrated press media market that has experienced a decline in the number of newsroom reporters from the 20^th to the 21^st century. We undertake a content analysis of news stories published in 1997 and 2017 about cancer treatments and cancer medical research. Using keyword searching techniques of the news database Factiva, 633 news reports about cancer were detected. Of these, 120 stories met the research criteria. Each story was assessed across eight variables using a coding tool, the Media Quality Index (MQI). The study finds 2017 stories had lower scores (equating to less quality) across all eight variables compared to the 1997 cohort. Of statistical significance, 2017 stories were less likely to quantify the benefits of a proposed intervention, while stories discussing medical research were less comprehensive about research findings. The 2017 stories were less likely to discuss side effects or the potential for harm, and were more sensational, with incongruent headlines compared to content. The empirical evidence pointing to a deterioration in mainstream media reporting about cancer has implications for broader health literacy. It may foster unrealistic patient expectations about clinical practice and treatment options, with public policy implications such as overutilization of health services. The study serves as a reminder to medical practitioners that health communication directly with patients is vital as media reporting alone cannot reliably inform patients about their cancer diagnosis and treatment.

A quantitative analysis of the quality and content of the health advice in popular Australian magazines

OBJECTIVE

To examine how health advice is provided in popular magazines and the quality of that advice.

METHODS

A prospective quantitative analysis of the quality of health advice provided in Australian magazines between July and December 2011 was conducted. A rating instrument was adapted from the Media Doctor Australia rating tool used to assess quality of health news reporting. Criteria included: recommends seeing a doctor; advice based on reliable evidence; advice clear and easily applied; benefits presented meaningfully; potential harms mentioned; evidence of disease mongering; availability and cost of treatments; obvious advertising; vested interest, and anecdotal evidence.

RESULTS

163 health advice articles were rated showing a wide variation in the quality of advice presented between magazines. Magazines with 'health' in the title, rated most poorly with only 36% (26/73) of these articles presenting clear and meaningful advice and 52% (38/73) giving advice based on reliable evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Australian magazines, especially those with health in the title, generally presented poor quality, unreliable health advice. Teen magazine Dolly provided the highest quality advice.

IMPLICATIONS

Consumers need to be aware of this when making health choices.

Medicines and the media: news reports of medicines recommended for government reimbursement in Australia

Background

Previous analyses of the listings of trastuzumab on the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) and HPV vaccine on the National Immunisation Program (NIP) suggest a media influence on policy makers. We examined the timing and content of Australian newspaper reports of medicines in relation to Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) decisions.

Methods

We identified newspaper reports (2005-2008) of medicines recommended for PBS listing in 2006–2007, analysing the content for mentions of the medicine, PBS and medicine costs to the patient and the government and counting the numbers of articles published in the six months before, the month of, and the six months after the relevant PBAC meeting. Case studies examined reporting for infliximab for Crohn’s Disease, pemetrexed for mesothelioma, and ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) medicines atomoxetine and methylphenidate.

Results

Of 79 eligible medicines, 62 had news reports. Most often reported were HPV vaccine (1230 stories), trastuzumab (410), pemetrexed (83), botulinum toxin (71), lapatinib (65), methylphenidate (57), atomoxetine (54), infliximab (49), rotavirus vaccine (45). Eighteen medicines had ≥20 news reports (total 2350 stories); nine of these cost more than AU$10,000 per course or year of treatment. For these 18 medicines, 31% of stories appeared in the six months prior to the PBAC meeting, 14% in the meeting month and 33% in the six months post-meeting. 38% of the stories had ≥3 medicine mentions, 37% referred to the PBS, 24% to cost to the patient, and 9% cost to Government.

There was active patient lobby group campaigning in support of listing of infliximab and pemetrexed; the stories for ADHD were often more negative, referring to the dangers of the medicines and sometimes questioning the appropriateness of treatment and public subsidy. There was little discussion of the PBAC’s evidence-based decision-making processes.

Conclusions

While there was no general trend to increased news reporting associated with PBAC meetings, some drugs did attract media attention. With more new and expensive drugs, decisions on public funding will become increasingly difficult. The media have an important role in enhancing public understanding of the issues around resource allocation. Specialist journalists, guidelines and checklists may help reporting.