| U of M Alumni Association | U of M Twin Cities |
 |
| ||
| |||
|
“Which headline tells the story?” wrote Gary Schwitzer, an associate professor of journalism at the University of Minnesota, on his health news blog. What followed were headlines from two newspapers, each covering the same Johns Hopkins study. “Hopkins study supports use of CT scan of heart,” cheered the Baltimore Sun headline, which contrasted starkly with the Wall Street Journal headline: “Heart scans sometimes fail to identify blockages, study finds.” That two major newspapers characterized the same heart scan study in such dramatically different ways illustrates how confusing health news can be—and what health information consumers face when they try to interpret it. Schwitzer, featured in our cover story this issue (page 18), rarely misses a day blogging about the health information—much of it misleading or incomplete—that bombards American consumers every day. And he has no shortage of fodder. In one recent entry, he posted an ad from a local heart clinic offering a $50 coupon for a coronary test that, in fact, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommends against. “Which should you believe?” Schwitzer wrote about the juxtaposed messages. “Beware of promotions of ‘simple 5 minute’ tests,” he warned. “[It’s] much more complicated than the enticing ads admit.” In another post, Schwitzer uploaded a CBS video of a lunchtime liposuction procedure on a young, healthy, and—according to the CBS host—“gorgeous” woman who wanted to rid herself of a slight fat pouch on her belly. The story lacked independent sources, medical evidence, and an adequate discussion of cost. Wrote Schwitzer: “This was free advertising: 5 minutes’ worth!” In other entries, he’s taken various media to task for health news hype, such as the New York Times for its headline announcing that researchers were close to finding a cure for the common cold and the Associated Press for running a story stating that a patient who underwent a bone marrow transplant to treat leukemia appeared to be cured of AIDS. “Does journalism ever learn about ‘cures’? About verification? About replication of results??” Schwitzer wrote. “About the impact of such stories on sick people?” Schwitzer’s four-and-a-half-year-old blog (http://blog.lib.umn.edu/schwitz/healthnews) is steadily climbing in its ranking by Wikio.com, a news search engine, as one of the most widely referenced health blogs. And of the more than 7,200 blogs hosted by the University, his ranks as the sixth most active. His blog is read not just by health journalists, whom he targets and whose reporting he critiques, but by a growing general audience. We’re all health information consumers all the time, not just when we’re selecting a health care plan. We need to be skeptical of every health story or ad we encounter. Indeed, health care consumers would be well-served by judging health news according to the 10 criteria Schwitzer uses to rate stories. A credible health story: adequately discusses costs, quantifies benefits, adequately explains and quantifies potential harms, compares the new idea with existing alternatives, seeks out independent sources and discloses potential conflicts of interest, avoids disease-mongering, reviews the study methodology or the quality of the evidence, establishes the true novelty of the idea, establishes the availability of the product or procedure, and appears not to rely solely or largely on a news release. The goal is accurate health information for consumers so they may make informed health decisions. Until then, in the words Schwitzer concluded an entry shortly after he launched his blog in 2004: Caveat emptor. Shelly Fling may be reached at fling003@umn.edu. | |||||||||||||||
|
Last modified on 3/24/2009 12:28:27 PM ©2009 by the University of Minnesota Alumni Association. The University of Minnesota Alumni Association is an equal opportunity educator and employer. | Trouble seeing the text? | Contact Alumni Association | Privacy |
Print View