Exaggerations and Caveats in Press Releases and Health-Related Science News

Abstract

BackgroundExaggerated or simplistic news is often blamed for adversely influencing public health. However, recent findings suggested many exaggerations were already present in university press releases, which scientists approve. Surprisingly, these exaggerations were not associated with more news coverage. Here we test whether these two controversial results also arise in press releases from prominent science and medical journals. We then investigate the influence of mitigating caveats in press releases, to test assumptions that caveats harm news interest or are ignored.Methods and FindingsUsing quantitative content analysis, we analyzed press releases (N = 534) on biomedical and health-related science issued by leading peer-reviewed journals. We similarly analysed the associated peer-reviewed papers (N = 534) and news stories (N = 582). Main outcome measures were advice to readers and causal statements drawn from correlational research. Exaggerations in press releases predicted exaggerations in news (odds ratios 2.4 and 10.9, 95% CIs 1.3 to 4.5 and 3.9 to 30.1) but were not associated with increased news coverage, consistent with previous findings. Combining datasets from universities and journals (996 press releases, 1250 news), we found that when caveats appeared in press releases there was no reduction in journalistic uptake, but there was a clear increase in caveats in news (odds ratios 9.6 and 9.5 for caveats for advice and causal claims, CIs 4.1 to 24.3 and 6.0 to 15.2). The main study limitation is its retrospective correlational nature.ConclusionsFor health and science news directly inspired by press releases, the main source of both exaggerations and caveats appears to be the press release itself. However we find no evidence that exaggerations increase, or caveats decrease, the likelihood of news coverage. These findings should be encouraging for press officers and scientists who wish to minimise exaggeration and include caveats in their press releases.

Effects of the Informed Health Choices podcast on the ability of parents of primary school children in Uganda to assess claims about treatment effects: a randomised controlled trial

“…[8][9][10][11] However, there are substantial barriers that prevent journalists from improving the scientific quality of their reports, 12 and evaluations have found major shortcomings of health stories in the media. [13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23] Therefore, audiences must be able to appraise the reliability of claims about treatment effects in the mass media, as elsewhere. This includes claims about the effects of drugs, surgery and other types of "modern medicine"; claims about lifestyle changes, such as changes to what you eat or how you exercise; claims about herbal remedies and other types of "traditional" or "alternative medicine"; claims about public health and environmental interventions; and claims about changes in how healthcare is delivered, financed and governed.…”

Polluted at the faucet

“…There is further bad news, but with a silver lining. A 2016 study of press releases again found that the prime source of exaggeration in news was the press release, but it found no evidence that exaggerations boosted the likelihood of news coverage, or that caveats decreased media interest . “Our studies found that if you hype a press release, it is no more likely to get into the news than if you don't”, Chambers commented.…”

Critical thinking in healthcare and education

“…This is something that most people struggle to do, and it is becoming increasingly important because patients are taking on a bigger role in managing their health and 13 while needing to cope with more and more health information, much of which is not reliable. [14][15][16][17] Teaching critical thinking…”