World Library  
Flag as Inappropriate
Email this Article

Medical journalism

Article Id: WHEBN0022175792
Reproduction Date:

Title: Medical journalism  
Author: World Heritage Encyclopedia
Language: English
Subject: Journalism, Analytic journalism, Outline of journalism, Newspaper, Medical journalism
Collection: Medical Journalism
Publisher: World Heritage Encyclopedia

Medical journalism

Men's Health magazine, published by Rodale Press

Medical journalism is the dissemination of health-related information through mainstream media outlets. Medical issues are widely reported, and these reports influence physicians, the general public, and the government. The coverage is often criticized for being misleading, inaccurate, or speculative.[1] Several web sites and journals review medical journalism. The availability of health information steadily increases every year and has led to a variety of effects in the behaviors of recipients.


  • Sources of Medical Journalism 1
  • Accuracy 2
  • Conflict of interest 3
    • Between Scientists and Journalists 3.1
    • Due to Corporate Influence 3.2
  • Reviews 4
  • Effects of Medical Journalism on the General Public 5
  • See also 6
  • References 7
  • External links 8

Sources of Medical Journalism

Medical journalism can come from a variety of sources including:

  • Television news programs
  • Newspapers
  • Internet websites
  • Scientific journals (those that report health- and medical-related news)

WorldHeritage itself is one of the major sources of health information on the internet; In fact, one study found that in a selection of health keywords, WorldHeritage is listed in the first ten results in 71 to 85% cases.[2]


Most inaccuracies and speculations in news coverage can be attributed to several barriers between the scientific community and the general public that include lack of knowledge by reporters, lack of time to prepare a proper report, and lack of space in the publication.[1] Most news articles fail to discuss important issues such as evidence quality, costs, and risks versus benefits.[3] However, medical journalism is not only what is being commercialized and covered by news and mass media. There is also another extensive, more academic branch of medical journalism which is based on evidence. Evidence-based research is more accurate and thus it is a much more reliable source than medical news disseminated by tabloids. Medical journalism in this regard is a professional field and is often disregarded. There are also some medical journalism institutions that provide assistance to medical researchers to enable them to perform more reliable studies. Adib Vira Medical Journalism Open Institute provides services for both medical researchers and journals in order to enhance the quality of studies and journals, as well as assist researchers in performing their studies ethically and according to global medical journalism standards. A 2009 study found small improvements in some areas of medical reporting in Australia, but the overall quality remained poor, particularly in commercial human-interest television programs.[4]

More recently, the use of medical writers has become more popular as a way to produce medical literature that is clear, concise, and easier to read by the lay person.

The ICMJE, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, is a committee that specifically deals with this kind of issue. This organization is committed to keeping medical reporting as true as possible by setting a standard known as URM, or the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts. These requirements do not only specify technical points such as bibliographical references and copyrights but also regarding ethical issues that may arise. For example, a submitter must disclose any personal or professional relationships that might even slightly have a bearing on the submitted work.

To this end, it is not uncommon for researchers to hold a press conference or interviews before publishing significant research to prevent any misconstruing of any data or methods.[5]

Conflict of interest

Between Scientists and Journalists

A large gap divides the scientific and journalist communities when it comes to deciding what is newsworthy. The ongoing nature of peer review in the scientific community makes it difficult to report interesting advances in scientific discovery. Consequently, this can create a focus on the negative aspects of medicine and science; causing journalists to report on the mistakes of doctors or misconstruing the results of research. However, journalists are not the only ones to fault as scientists have also broadcast their promising initial research to the media in attempts to secure future funding.[6] For example, research done by George Washington University in 1993 on in-vitro fertilization was warped by the media into a horrific foray into human cloning.

Due to Corporate Influence

Medical journalists also face challenges due to potential conflicts of interest. The pharmaceutical industry has sponsored journalism contests that carry large prizes in cash or in overseas trips. The

  • Media Doctor (Australia)
  • Behind the Headlines (UK)
  • Health News Review (U.S.)
  • How to Read Articles about Health and Healthcare by Alicia White

External links

  1. ^ a b c Larsson A, Oxman AD, Carling C, Herrin J (2003). "Medical messages in the media—barriers and solutions to improving medical journalism". Health Expect 6 (4): 323–31.  
  2. ^ Laurent, Michael R.; Vickers, Tim J. (Jul–Aug 2009). "Seeking Health Information Online: Does WorldHeritage Matter?". Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: 471–479. 
  3. ^ Schwitzer G (2008). "How Do US Journalists Cover Treatments, Tests, Products, and Procedures? An Evaluation of 500 Stories". PLoS Med 5 (5): e95.  
  4. ^ Wilson A, Bonevski B, Jones A, Henry D (2009). Gluud, Lise Lotte, ed. "Media Reporting of Health Interventions: Signs of Improvement, but Major Problems Persist". PLoS ONE 4 (3): e4831.  
  5. ^ "ICMJE Uniform Requirements of Manuscripts". International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Retrieved 12 November 2012. 
  6. ^ a b Nelkin, Dorothy (June 1996). "An Uneasy Relationship: The Tensions between Medicine and the Media.". Lancet 347 (1905): 1600–1603.  
  7. ^ Greene J (2009). "Pharma's influence on the fourth estate: health care journalists' conflicts also scrutinized". Ann Emerg Med 53 (3): 18A–20A.  
  8. ^ "How we rate stories". Health News Review. 2008. Retrieved 2009-03-26. 
  9. ^ Dentzer S (2009). "Communicating medical news—pitfalls of health care journalism". N Engl J Med 360 (1): 1–3.  
  10. ^ Carducci, Annalaura; Simona Alfani (2011). "Mass media health information: Quantitative and qualitative analysis of daily press coverage and its relation with public perceptions". Patient Education and Counseling 82: 475–478.  
  11. ^ Suziedelyte, Agne (August 2012). "How does searching for health information on the Internet affect individuals’ demand for health care services?". Social Science & Medicine 75: 1828–1835.  


See also

Medical journalism can also influence an individual's quality of health care. Due to the relative ease at which information can be obtained on the internet, many people will now question doctors on new medications and treatments for their conditions. In more extreme cases, people will compare their symptoms, real or imagined, to various illnesses in attempts to diagnose themselves.[11] There have been a few recent studies that have tried to explore the availability of health information as complement to health care or as a substitute yet no direct relationships have been found. This is most likely caused by a lack of knowledge or a lack of the ability in the individual to apply the health information once found resulting in seeking health care.

Although medical news articles often deliver public health messages effectively, they often convey wrong or misleading information about health care, partly when reporters do not know or cannot convey the results of clinical studies, and partly when they fail to supply reasonable context.[9] This can result in unrealistic expectations due to coverage of radical medical procedures and experimental technology.[1] Mass media news outlets can also create a “communications storm”to shift attention to a single health issue.[10] The lack of health knowledge in the general public creates a situation where a person can be easily swayed to a certain point of view that is cast in the manner in which information is reported. Consequently, this can create a potentially unhealthy focus on an illness that in actuality is relatively rare.

Effects of Medical Journalism on the General Public

Sources for evaluating health-care media coverage include the review websites Behind the Headlines, Health News Review, and Media Doctor (see External links), along with specialized academic journals such as the Journal of Health Communication. Reviews can also appear in the American Journal of Public Health, the Columbia Journalism Review, Ben Goldacre's "Bad Science" column in The Guardian, and others. Health News Review has published criteria for rating news stories.[8]


There is also the effect of direct corporate investments in research funding. While appreciated by scientists, this may cause conflicts with journalists that see this as profiteering.[6]


This article was sourced from Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. World Heritage Encyclopedia content is assembled from numerous content providers, Open Access Publishing, and in compliance with The Fair Access to Science and Technology Research Act (FASTR), Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., Public Library of Science, The Encyclopedia of Life, Open Book Publishers (OBP), PubMed, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health (NIH), U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, and, which sources content from all federal, state, local, tribal, and territorial government publication portals (.gov, .mil, .edu). Funding for and content contributors is made possible from the U.S. Congress, E-Government Act of 2002.
Crowd sourced content that is contributed to World Heritage Encyclopedia is peer reviewed and edited by our editorial staff to ensure quality scholarly research articles.
By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. World Heritage Encyclopedia™ is a registered trademark of the World Public Library Association, a non-profit organization.

Copyright © World Library Foundation. All rights reserved. eBooks from Project Gutenberg are sponsored by the World Library Foundation,
a 501c(4) Member's Support Non-Profit Organization, and is NOT affiliated with any governmental agency or department.