ABSTRACT
Objective: Recently, special features on “dangerous” prescription drugs have been frequently published in few mass media platforms, such as weekly magazines. However, to our knowledge, there have been no prior studies, systematically organizing and evaluating the contents of these articles (e.g., drugs and their side effects that are reported). In this study, we aimed to evaluate the relevance of the information on “dangerous drugs” that was published in weekly magazines using the modified “Media Doctor” instrument.Methods: We extracted articles on “dangerous” prescription drugs from 10 weekly magazines for which the table of contents of previous issues are available on their official websites. Information regarding the target drugs and their classifications was compiled and organized. The relevance of the extracted news articles was assessed by two independent evaluators. The evaluation index was based on the modified “Media Doctor” instrument, and 9 evaluation criteria were used to assign the following categories: satisfactory, unsatisfactory, or not applicable.Results: A total of 1,064 articles were screened, and 19 articles were selected for further evaluation. A total of 179 drugs (belonging to 34 drug classes) were listed. The most frequently mentioned class of drugs included hypnotics and sedatives, and the most frequently listed was triazolam. Of the 19 articles, 11 had zero items that were judged satisfactory by both the evaluators. The number of unsatisfactory items was widely distributed, but in 11 of the 19 articles, five and more items were judged unsatisfactory by both the evaluators.Conclusion: We revealed that a wide variety of drugs have been termed as “dangerous” by weekly magazines. Additionally, we found that these articles were inadequate and incomplete with respect to scientific validity, and that there are many aspects that require further improvement.
ABSTRACT
Objective: The objective of this study was to examine information quality by quantitatively evaluating newspaper stories on drug therapy using the “Media Doctor” instrument.Methods: A database search was conducted to extract newspaper stories on drug therapy published between July 1, 2017 and December 31, 2017. Two evaluators independently evaluated each story using the “Media Doctor” instrument. Each of the 10 evaluation criteria were rated as “satisfactory” or “not satisfactory.” When the content of the story was not suitable for the evaluation criteria, it was regarded as “not applicable”.Results: Fifty-nine news stories (Asahi: 13, Mainichi: 8, Nikkei: 8, Sankei: 14, Yomiuri: 16) were included. The median number of evaluation criteria that the two evaluators judged as “satisfactory” was 5. The proportions of stories that the two evaluators judged as satisfactory were “1. availability,” 73%; “2. novelty,” 66%; “3. alternatives,” 39%; “4. disease mongering,” 58%; “5. evidence,” 32%; “6. quantification of benefits,” 31%; “7. harm,” 41%; “8. cost,” 22%; “9. sources of information/conflict of interest,” 12%; and “10. headline,” 66%. Conversely, the proportions of stories judged as “not satisfactory” were “1. availability,” 0%; “2. novelty,” 5%; “3. alternatives,” 12%; “4. disease mongering,” 8%; “5. evidence,” 24%; “6. quantification of benefits,” 29%; “7. harm,” 41%; “8. cost,”44%; “9. sources of information/conflict of interest,” 32%; and “10. headline,” 12%.Conclusion: These results suggest that the quality of newspaper stories are insufficient as drug information in terms of the validity of its scientific evidence.
ABSTRACT
<B>Objectives :</B> To evaluate health stories from several representative news websites in the U.K. and in Japan with the Media Doctor Australia rating instrument in order to contrast the strength and weakness of Japanese health stories with that of U.K. ones.<Br><B>Design :</B>Cross-sectional study<Br><B>Methods :</B> Stories describing treatment or prevention of diseases published between January and June 2007 were retrieved from U.K. (BBC, Guardian, Independent, Times, Yahoo! UK,) and Japanese (Asahi, Yomiuri, Yahoo! Japan,) websites which specialize in health / medical news. The quality of retrieved stories was examined with an instrument developed by Media Doctor Australia. Overall score was contrasted between two countries.<Br><B>Results :</B> 296 U.K. stories and 79 Japanese stories were retrieved. The overall score by media outlet ranged between 45.7 (Asahi) and 63.4 (Independent) out of 100. When all outlets were pooled, U.K. stories (average overall score 60.0, 95%CI 58.2-61.8) were rated significantly higher than Japanese stories (47.8, 95%CI 45.4-50.2) (p<0.001).<Br><B>Conclusion :</B> Stories reviewed in this study did not provide satisfactory information from the viewpoint of Media Doctor Australia. This suggests that journalists and health service researchers can help each other for the better dissemination of health information to the general public.