Descriptions of Scientific Evidence and Uncertainty of Unproven COVID-19 Therapies in US News: Content Analysis Study.

IF 3.5 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES JMIR infodemiology Pub Date : 2024-08-29 DOI:10.2196/51328
Sara Watson, Tyler J Benning, Alessandro R Marcon, Xuan Zhu, Timothy Caulfield, Richard R Sharp, Zubin Master
{"title":"Descriptions of Scientific Evidence and Uncertainty of Unproven COVID-19 Therapies in US News: Content Analysis Study.","authors":"Sara Watson, Tyler J Benning, Alessandro R Marcon, Xuan Zhu, Timothy Caulfield, Richard R Sharp, Zubin Master","doi":"10.2196/51328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. \"Government\" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while \"expert\" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a \"prominent person,\" of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73554,"journal":{"name":"JMIR infodemiology","volume":"4 ","pages":"e51328"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11393509/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JMIR infodemiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2196/51328","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty.

Objective: This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines.

Methods: We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority.

Results: The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. "Government" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while "expert" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a "prominent person," of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001).

Conclusions: These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国新闻中对未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法的科学证据和不确定性的描述:内容分析研究。
背景:未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法的政治化、错误信息或虚假信息导致了向公众展示科学的传播挑战,尤其是在公众高度恐慌和不确定的时期:本研究旨在探讨在开发成熟疗法和疫苗之前,美国新闻是如何报道 3 种未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法的科学证据和不确定性的:我们对 2020 年初未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法进行了媒体分析。我们对 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 7 月 30 日美国传统新闻报道和网络新闻报道中有关未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法(羟氯喹、雷米地韦和康复血浆)的 479 条讨论进行了系统分析,分析内容包括主题、科学证据、证据细节和局限性、安全性、有效性和权威来源:大多数讨论都包含科学证据(322 条,67%),但其中只有 24% (116 条)提到出版物。关于雷米替韦的安全性和有效性声明,"政府 "是最常被提及的权威来源(43 人,占 35%),而关于康复血浆的声明,"专家 "是最常被提及的来源(22 人,占 38%)。关于羟氯喹的大多数声明(n=236,79%)是由 "知名人士 "提供的,其中 97%(n=230)来自美国前总统特朗普。尽管包含科学证据,但许多关于安全性和有效性的说法都是由非专业人士提出的。很少有新闻报道在讨论未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法时表达了科学上的不确定性,因为证据的局限性很少出现在新闻报道的正文中(n=125,26%),也很少出现在标题(n=2,2%)或主要段落(n=9,9%;PConclusions:这些结果突出表明,虽然科学证据在新闻报道中的讨论频率相对较高,但科学不确定性却很少被报道,也很少出现在醒目的标题和主要段落中。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Association Between X/Twitter and Prescribing Behavior During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Retrospective Ecological Study. Correction: Exploring the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Twitter in Japan: Qualitative Analysis of Disrupted Plans and Consequences. The Complex Interaction Between Sleep-Related Information, Misinformation, and Sleep Health: A Call for Comprehensive Research on Sleep Infodemiology and Infoveillance. Understanding and Combating Misinformation: An Evolutionary Perspective. Detection and Characterization of Online Substance Use Discussions Among Gamers: Qualitative Retrospective Analysis of Reddit r/StopGaming Data.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1