The Investigation of Current Information Regarding Renal Diseases in Mass Media

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE: We often have patients who acquired incorrect medical information from the mass media. The purpose of this study was to evaluate credibility of articles in newspapers and medical counseling on websites about renal diseases. METHODS: Kidney information was searched in 6 newspapers for the past 10 years, and 4 portal websites and 17 internet health counseling sites for the past 5 years. We classified them according to information providers and evaluated credibility by giving points 3, 2, 1 to correct, mostly correct but ambiguous, and incorrect contents, respectively. We compared the credibility of the groups with each other. RESULTS: Sixty four articles from newspapers, and 789 and 506 medical counselings from portal websites and internet health counseling sites were selected, respectively. The kidney information providers in newspapers were medical journalists(doctors)(31.2%), kidney specialists(doctors) (23.4%) and so on. The consultants in the portal sites were doctors(49.1%)and anonymous reporters(49.9%). In internet health counseling sites, 91% of the consultants were doctors. All articles in the newspapers were credible. Doctors' answers were more credible than nonphysicians'(P=0.005) and anonymous contributors(P<0.001) in portal sites. In health counseling sites, doctors answered more reliably than nonphysicians. CONCLUSIONS: The kidney information in newspapers was credible. It is important for questioners to confirm the type of consultants in websites. We suggest that doctors, especially kidney specialists need to increase their roles in offering information to mass media.