Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial.

Item request has been placed! ×
Item request cannot be made. ×
loading   Processing Request
Read Online Read More Add to Saved list
  • Additional Information
    • Source:
      Publisher: BioMed Central Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 101190723 Publication Model: Electronic Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1741-7015 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 17417015 NLM ISO Abbreviation: BMC Med Subsets: MEDLINE
    • Publication Information:
      Original Publication: [London] : BioMed Central, 2003-
    • Subject Terms:
      Biomedical Research*/education ; Biomedical Research*/standards ; Causality* ; Information Dissemination*/methods ; Mass Media*/standards; Communication ; Double-Blind Method ; Evidence-Based Medicine/standards ; Health Behavior ; Health Promotion/methods ; Health Promotion/standards ; Humans ; Public Health/standards ; Public Health/statistics & numerical data ; United Kingdom/epidemiology
    • Abstract:
      Background: Misleading news claims can be detrimental to public health. We aimed to improve the alignment between causal claims and evidence, without losing news interest (counter to assumptions that news is not interested in communicating caution).
      Methods: We tested two interventions in press releases, which are the main sources for science and health news: (a) aligning the headlines and main causal claims with the underlying evidence (strong for experimental, cautious for correlational) and (b) inserting explicit statements/caveats about inferring causality. The 'participants' were press releases on health-related topics (N = 312; control = 89, claim alignment = 64, causality statement = 79, both = 80) from nine press offices (journals, universities, funders). Outcomes were news content (headlines, causal claims, caveats) in English-language international and national media (newspapers, websites, broadcast; N = 2257), news uptake (% press releases gaining news coverage) and feasibility (% press releases implementing cautious statements).
      Results: News headlines showed better alignment to evidence when press releases were aligned (intention-to-treat analysis (ITT) 56% vs 52%, OR = 1.2 to 1.9; as-treated analysis (AT) 60% vs 32%, OR = 1.3 to 4.4). News claims also followed press releases, significant only for AT (ITT 62% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.6; AT, 67% vs 39%, OR = 1.4 to 5.7). The same was true for causality statements/caveats (ITT 15% vs 10%, OR = 0.9 to 2.6; AT 20% vs 0%, OR 16 to 156). There was no evidence of lost news uptake for press releases with aligned headlines and claims (ITT 55% vs 55%, OR = 0.7 to 1.3, AT 58% vs 60%, OR = 0.7 to 1.7), or causality statements/caveats (ITT 53% vs 56%, OR = 0.8 to 1.0, AT 66% vs 52%, OR = 1.3 to 2.7). Feasibility was demonstrated by a spontaneous increase in cautious headlines, claims and caveats in press releases compared to the pre-trial period (OR = 1.01 to 2.6, 1.3 to 3.4, 1.1 to 26, respectively).
      Conclusions: News claims-even headlines-can become better aligned with evidence. Cautious claims and explicit caveats about correlational findings may penetrate into news without harming news interest. Findings from AT analysis are correlational and may not imply cause, although here the linking mechanism between press releases and news is known. ITT analysis was insensitive due to spontaneous adoption of interventions across conditions.
      Trial Registration: ISRCTN10492618 (20 August 2015).
    • References:
      Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2015 Oct;36(10):623-627. (PMID: 26435207)
      BMJ. 2014 Dec 09;349:g7015. (PMID: 25498121)
      J Clin Oncol. 2014 Dec 20;32(36):4120-6. (PMID: 25403215)
      PLoS Med. 2008 May 27;5(5):e95. (PMID: 18507496)
      PLoS One. 2015 Oct 16;10(10):e0140889. (PMID: 26473725)
      PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308. (PMID: 22984354)
      BMJ. 2004 Jun 19;328(7454):1490. (PMID: 15205295)
      PLoS One. 2016 Dec 15;11(12):e0168217. (PMID: 27978540)
      J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019 Dec;25(4):517-542. (PMID: 31246056)
      BMJ. 2012 Jan 27;344:d8164. (PMID: 22286507)
      JAMA Intern Med. 2015 Sep;175(9):1571-2. (PMID: 26053740)
      Health Commun. 2008 Jul;23(4):380-90. (PMID: 18702002)
      PLoS One. 2017 Feb 21;12(2):e0172650. (PMID: 28222122)
      BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003 Nov 24;3:26. (PMID: 14633287)
      PLoS One. 2015 Dec 23;10(12):e0145294. (PMID: 26701758)
      PLoS One. 2018 May 30;13(5):e0196346. (PMID: 29847549)
      Mem Cognit. 2000 Sep;28(6):1011-21. (PMID: 11105527)
      Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2002;(1):CD000389. (PMID: 11869574)
      Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 2003 Mar;157(3):257-60. (PMID: 12622675)
      Hum Reprod. 2017 Feb;32(2):403-408. (PMID: 28057875)
      BMJ. 2016 Jun 28;353:i3283. (PMID: 27353418)
      J Exp Psychol Appl. 2017 Mar;23(1):1-14. (PMID: 27808530)
      J Gen Psychol. 2015;142(1):48-70. (PMID: 25539186)
      Arch Dis Child. 2013 Oct;98(10):752-4. (PMID: 23898160)
    • Contributed Indexing:
      Keywords: Media; Public health; Science communication; Science news
    • Molecular Sequence:
      ISRCTN ISRCTN10492618
    • Publication Date:
      Date Created: 20190517 Date Completed: 20191119 Latest Revision: 20231011
    • Publication Date:
      20231011
    • Accession Number:
      PMC6521363
    • Accession Number:
      10.1186/s12916-019-1324-7
    • Accession Number:
      31092248