UK newspaper reporting of the NHS cancer drugs fund, 2010 to 2015: a retrospective media analysis.

Publisher: London Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 7802879 Publication Model: Print-Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1758-1095 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 01410768 NLM ISO Abbreviation: J R Soc Med Subsets: MEDLINE

Publication: Dec. 2012- : London : Sage
Original Publication: London : Royal Society Of Medicine

Drug Approval* ; Health Services Accessibility* ; Mass Media* ; Newspapers as Topic* ; State Medicine*; Antineoplastic Agents/*therapeutic use ; Neoplasms/*drug therapy; Attitude to Health ; Government ; Humans ; Public Opinion ; Quality of Health Care ; Retrospective Studies ; United Kingdom

Objective We wished to explore how UK national newspapers had covered the creation and operation of the Cancer Drugs Fund from 2010 to 2015. This was introduced to provide cancer patients in England with access to drugs not appraised or approved by the National Institute for health and Care Excellence. Design We sought stories in nine newspapers from the Factiva database, and copied their salient details to a spreadsheet. They were categorised by whether they were supportive or critical of the Cancer Drugs Fund and their main arguments, which drugs they mentioned and for which cancers. Settings Not applicable Participants Not applicable Main outcome results Press coverage was mainly very positive, arguing for the Cancer Drugs Fund's extension to Scotland and Wales, and a bigger budget, but neglecting the lack of patient benefit and the severe side effects that sometimes occurred. Leading this support was the Daily Mail, whose influence (measured by the product of number of stories and the paper's circulation) was almost greater than that of the other newspapers combined. Results Press coverage was mainly very positive, arguing for the Cancer Drugs Fund's extension to Scotland and Wales, and a bigger budget, but neglecting the lack of patient benefits and the severe side effects that sometimes occurred. Leading this support was the Daily Mail, whose influence (measured by the product of number of stories and the paper's circulation) was almost greater than that of the other newspapers combined. Conclusions Although there was some critical analysis of the Cancer Drugs Fund, our analysis shows that most press coverage was largely positive and unrepresentative in comparison with the lack of overall benefits to patients and society. It is likely that it contributed to the Cancer Drugs Fund's continuation despite mounting evidence of its ineffectiveness.

Comment in: J R Soc Med. 2019 Feb;112(2):56. (PMID: 30773975)
Comment in: J R Soc Med. 2019 Feb;112(2):56. (PMID: 30773979)

Int J Clin Pract. 2011 May;65(5):547-51. (PMID: 21489079)
Mol Oncol. 2008 Jun;2(1):20-32. (PMID: 19383326)
Ann Oncol. 2017 Aug 1;28(8):1738-1750. (PMID: 28453615)
Oncologist. 2015 Nov;20(11):1261-5. (PMID: 26446234)
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Jul;11(7):1040-50. (PMID: 27013405)
Arch Intern Med. 2010 Mar 22;170(6):515-8. (PMID: 20233800)
Clin Oncol (R Coll Radiol). 2004 Dec;16(8):549-60. (PMID: 15630849)
J Thorac Oncol. 2016 Jul;11(7):1153-69. (PMID: 27063293)
Int J Pharm. 2016 Nov 30;514(1):24-40. (PMID: 27863668)
Br J Cancer. 2008 Aug 19;99(4):569-76. (PMID: 18665166)

DRF-2014-07-064 United Kingdom DH_ Department of Health; MR/K023233/1 United Kingdom MRC_ Medical Research Council

Keywords: Effectiveness of care; chemotherapy; drugs and medicines; medicines regulation; oncology

0 (Antineoplastic Agents)

Date Created: 20180914 Date Completed: 20191004 Latest Revision: 20210304

20231215

PMC6194957

10.1177/0141076818796802

30212638