评判新闻:如何评估和提高关于临床干预的新闻报道的质量?

V A Entwistle, I S Watt
{"title":"评判新闻:如何评估和提高关于临床干预的新闻报道的质量?","authors":"V A Entwistle, I S Watt","doi":"10.1136/qshc.8.3.172","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Health care receives a lot of attention in the media. Rarely a day goes by without the wonders or horrors of some screening programme, drug, surgical procedure, or clinical service being discussed in the pages of our newspapers and on our television screens. Most of the major newspapers and television channels employ correspondents who specialise in health and medicine. Every day, these correspondents expect to be alerted to many potential “stories” by medical journals, policy makers, health service managers, professional interest groups, consumer interest groups, the pharmaceutical industry, research funders, and researchers. The correspondents’ interactions with these sources and their own activities in seeking, selecting, and structuring information all contribute to the shaping of stories. Media reports can influence the use that people make of healthcare interventions. Recent contraceptive “pill scares” communicated via the media have been associated with increases in the numbers of terminations of unwanted pregnancies among some populations, 2 although not others. 4 Women themselves have directly reported that they became pregnant after they stopped taking their oral contraceptives because of adverse media publicity. A systematic review of the eVects of media “campaigns” has shown that these can, at least in some circumstances, affect the use people make of health services. For example, publicity about the extremely high rates of hysterectomy among women in one Swiss canton appears to have triggered a fall in these rates, and there have been several examples of media campaigns that have increased the uptake of immunisations. 8 It seems likely that both healthcare professionals and the general public are influenced. Although it is not clear how and to what extent the specific characteristics of media reports of a particular issue influence their impact, most people would agree that media coverage of healthcare interventions should be of good quality. Their judgments about what constitutes good quality, however, are likely to vary according to their values and perspectives, and what they consider the purpose of such coverage to be. Representatives of diVerent groups tend to judge the quality of news reports according to diVerent criteria. The quotations in box 1 summarise several published opinions about one newspaper article that discussed possible genetic causes of asthma and the factors that aVected its publication.","PeriodicalId":20773,"journal":{"name":"Quality in health care : QHC","volume":"8 3","pages":"172-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1999-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.3.172","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Judging journalism: how should the quality of news reporting about clinical interventions be assessed and improved?\",\"authors\":\"V A Entwistle, I S Watt\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/qshc.8.3.172\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Health care receives a lot of attention in the media. Rarely a day goes by without the wonders or horrors of some screening programme, drug, surgical procedure, or clinical service being discussed in the pages of our newspapers and on our television screens. Most of the major newspapers and television channels employ correspondents who specialise in health and medicine. Every day, these correspondents expect to be alerted to many potential “stories” by medical journals, policy makers, health service managers, professional interest groups, consumer interest groups, the pharmaceutical industry, research funders, and researchers. The correspondents’ interactions with these sources and their own activities in seeking, selecting, and structuring information all contribute to the shaping of stories. Media reports can influence the use that people make of healthcare interventions. Recent contraceptive “pill scares” communicated via the media have been associated with increases in the numbers of terminations of unwanted pregnancies among some populations, 2 although not others. 4 Women themselves have directly reported that they became pregnant after they stopped taking their oral contraceptives because of adverse media publicity. A systematic review of the eVects of media “campaigns” has shown that these can, at least in some circumstances, affect the use people make of health services. For example, publicity about the extremely high rates of hysterectomy among women in one Swiss canton appears to have triggered a fall in these rates, and there have been several examples of media campaigns that have increased the uptake of immunisations. 8 It seems likely that both healthcare professionals and the general public are influenced. Although it is not clear how and to what extent the specific characteristics of media reports of a particular issue influence their impact, most people would agree that media coverage of healthcare interventions should be of good quality. Their judgments about what constitutes good quality, however, are likely to vary according to their values and perspectives, and what they consider the purpose of such coverage to be. Representatives of diVerent groups tend to judge the quality of news reports according to diVerent criteria. The quotations in box 1 summarise several published opinions about one newspaper article that discussed possible genetic causes of asthma and the factors that aVected its publication.\",\"PeriodicalId\":20773,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"volume\":\"8 3\",\"pages\":\"172-6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"1999-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1136/qshc.8.3.172\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quality in health care : QHC\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.3.172\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quality in health care : QHC","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/qshc.8.3.172","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15
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
Judging journalism: how should the quality of news reporting about clinical interventions be assessed and improved?
Health care receives a lot of attention in the media. Rarely a day goes by without the wonders or horrors of some screening programme, drug, surgical procedure, or clinical service being discussed in the pages of our newspapers and on our television screens. Most of the major newspapers and television channels employ correspondents who specialise in health and medicine. Every day, these correspondents expect to be alerted to many potential “stories” by medical journals, policy makers, health service managers, professional interest groups, consumer interest groups, the pharmaceutical industry, research funders, and researchers. The correspondents’ interactions with these sources and their own activities in seeking, selecting, and structuring information all contribute to the shaping of stories. Media reports can influence the use that people make of healthcare interventions. Recent contraceptive “pill scares” communicated via the media have been associated with increases in the numbers of terminations of unwanted pregnancies among some populations, 2 although not others. 4 Women themselves have directly reported that they became pregnant after they stopped taking their oral contraceptives because of adverse media publicity. A systematic review of the eVects of media “campaigns” has shown that these can, at least in some circumstances, affect the use people make of health services. For example, publicity about the extremely high rates of hysterectomy among women in one Swiss canton appears to have triggered a fall in these rates, and there have been several examples of media campaigns that have increased the uptake of immunisations. 8 It seems likely that both healthcare professionals and the general public are influenced. Although it is not clear how and to what extent the specific characteristics of media reports of a particular issue influence their impact, most people would agree that media coverage of healthcare interventions should be of good quality. Their judgments about what constitutes good quality, however, are likely to vary according to their values and perspectives, and what they consider the purpose of such coverage to be. Representatives of diVerent groups tend to judge the quality of news reports according to diVerent criteria. The quotations in box 1 summarise several published opinions about one newspaper article that discussed possible genetic causes of asthma and the factors that aVected its publication.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Engaging patients in decisions: a challenge to health care delivery and public health. The extent of patients' understanding of the risk of treatments. Preferences and understanding their effects on health. Evidence-based patient empowerment. Performance management at the crossroads in the NHS: don't go into the red.
×
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