Dataset Information

Interventions to improve media coverage of medical research: a codesigned feasibility and acceptability study with Australian journalists.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Although the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia.

Design

A small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign.

Setting

90 min online workshop.

Participants

Eight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers.

Intervention

The training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics.

Measures

Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed.

Results

All participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion.

Conclusions

Piloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine.

SUBMITTER: Copp T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9207948 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePromotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests.DesignQualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.Participants and settingTwenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia.ResultsThis sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting.ConclusionsEffectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.

Project description:Vaccine-preventable diseases (VPD) are still a major cause of morbidity and mortality worldwide. In high and middle-income settings, immunization coverage is relatively high. However, in many countries coverage rates of routinely recommended vaccines are still below the targets established by international and national advisory committees. Progress in the field of communication technology might provide useful tools to enhance immunization strategies.To systematically collect and summarize the available evidence on the effectiveness of interventions that apply new media to promote vaccination uptake and increase vaccination coverage.We conducted a systematic literature review. Studies published from January 1999 to September 2013 were identified by searching electronic resources (Pubmed, Embase), manual searches of references and expert consultation. Study setting We focused on interventions that targeted recommended vaccinations for children, adolescents and adults and: (1) aimed at increasing community demand for immunizations, or (2) were provider-based interventions. We limited the study setting to countries that are members of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD).The primary outcome was a measure of vaccination (vaccine uptake or vaccine coverage). Considered secondary outcomes included willingness to receive immunization, attitudes and perceptions toward vaccination, and perceived helpfulness of the intervention.Nineteen studies were included in the systematic review. The majority of the studies were conducted in the US (74%, n = 14); 68% (n = 13) of the studies were experimental, the rest having an observational study design. Eleven (58%) reported results on the primary outcome. Retrieved studies explored the role of: text messaging (n.7, 37%), smartphone applications (n.1, 5%), Youtube videos (n.1, 5%), Facebook (n.1, 5%), targeted websites and portals (n.4, 21%), software for physicians and health professionals (n.4, 21%), and email communication (n.1, 5%). There is some evidence that text messaging, accessing immunization campaign websites, using patient-held web-based portals and computerized reminders increase immunization coverage rates. Insufficient evidence is available on the use of social networks, email communication and smartphone applications.Although there is great potential for improving vaccine uptake and vaccine coverage by implementing programs and interventions that apply new media, scant data are available and further rigorous research - including cost-effectiveness assessments - is needed.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Caregiver involvement is critical for supporting positive behavioral health and legal outcomes for justice-involved youth; however, recruiting this population into clinical research studies and engaging them in treatment remain challenging. Technology-based approaches are a promising, yet understudied avenue for recruiting and intervening with caregivers of justice-involved youth. OBJECTIVE:This mixed methods study aimed to assess the feasibility of recruiting caregivers of justice-involved youth using social media into clinical research and to understand caregivers' perceptions of the acceptability of digital health interventions. METHODS:Caregivers of justice-involved youth were recruited through paid Facebook advertisements to participate in a Web-based survey. Advertisement design was determined using Facebook A/B split testing, and the advertisement with the lowest cost per link click was used for the primary advertisement campaign. Survey participants were offered the option to participate in a follow-up qualitative phone interview focused on the perceived feasibility and acceptability of digital health interventions. RESULTS:Facebook advertisements were successful in quickly recruiting a diverse set of caregivers (80/153, 52.3% female; mean age 43 years, SD 7; 76/168, 45.2% black, 34/168, 20.2% white, and 28/168, 16.7% Latinx; and 97/156, 62.2% biological parents); cost per click was US $0.53, and conversion rate was 11.5%. Survey participants used multiple social media platforms; 60.1% (101/168) of the participants indicated they would participate in a digital health intervention for caregivers of justice-involved youth. Survey respondents' most preferred intervention was supportive and motivational parenting messages via SMS text message. Of the survey respondents, 18 completed a phone interview (12/18, 67% female; mean age 45 years, SD 10; 10/18, 56% black, 7/18, 39% white, and 1/18, 6% Latinx; and 16/18, 89% biological parents). Interview participant responses suggested digital health interventions are acceptable, but they expressed both likes (eg, alleviates barriers to treatment access) and concerns (eg, privacy); their most preferred intervention was video-based family therapy. CONCLUSIONS:Recruiting and intervening with caregivers of justice-involved youth through social media and other digital health approaches may be a feasible and acceptable approach to overcoming barriers to accessing traditional in-person behavioral health care.

Project description:BackgroundYoung people (aged 12-25 years) with diverse sexuality, gender, or bodily characteristics, such as those who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, or queer (LGBTIQ+), are at substantially greater risk of a range of mental, physical, and sexual health difficulties compared with their peers. Digital health interventions have been identified as a potential way to reduce these health disparities.ObjectiveThis review aims to summarize the characteristics of existing evidence-based digital health interventions for LGBTIQ+ young people and to describe the evidence for their effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted using internet databases and gray literature sources, and the results were screened for inclusion. The included studies were synthesized qualitatively.ResultsThe search identified 38 studies of 24 unique interventions seeking to address mental, physical, or sexual health-related concerns in LGBTIQ+ young people. Substantially more evidence-based interventions existed for gay and bisexual men than for any other population group, and there were more interventions related to risk reduction of sexually transmitted infections than to any other health concern. There was some evidence for the effectiveness, feasibility, and acceptability of these interventions overall; however, the quality of evidence is often lacking.ConclusionsThere is sufficient evidence to suggest that targeted digital health interventions are an important focus for future research aimed at addressing health difficulties in LGBTIQ+ young people. Additional digital health interventions are needed for a wider range of health difficulties, particularly in terms of mental and physical health concerns, as well as more targeted interventions for same gender-attracted women, trans and gender-diverse people, and people with intersex variations.Trial registrationPROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42020128164; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=128164.

Project description:Background Advancements in screen media devices has transformed the way families engage with screen media. Although these modern devices offer many opportunities, e.g. communication and research online, an in-depth understanding of how these devices affect our health, is lacking. Before a definite randomized controlled trial, the SCREENS pilot study was conducted to assess compliance to and feasibility of two interventions, a measurement protocol, and a survey-based recruitment strategy. Also, the potential of the interventions to impact leisure time spent non-sedentary in children six-to-ten years of age was explored. Methods Families (N = 12) were recruited through a population-based survey sent out in October of 2018 to adults (N = 1,675) in the Municipality of Middelfart, Denmark. Families were randomized to one of two two-week interventions; an Evening Restriction intervention (no screen media use after six pm) and a General Restrict intervention (limit entertainment-based screen media to three hours/week/person). Intervention compliance was assessed objectively by measuring household TV usage, smartphone and tablet activity via an application, and via screen media diaries. During baseline and follow-up, as part of larger protocol, family members wore two triaxial accelerometers for seven consecutive days. The potential of the interventions to impact non-sedentary time was explored based on means and standard errors (SEs). Results Despite almost 85% and 75% reductions in leisure screen media use 0% and 50% of families were compliant in the Evening Restrict group and General Restrict group, respectively, based on strict a priori criteria. Participant feedback indicated that the General Restrict intervention generally was feasibly. Compliance to the accelerometry wear protocol was high (median non-wear was <1 hour/week). Moreover, the recruitment strategy was implemented and was feasible. The General restrict intervention might increase children’s non-sedentary time (mean (SE): 36.6 (23) min/day, N = 6). Conclusions The General Restriction intervention, the accelerometer wear protocol and recruitment strategy, appeared feasible. Trial registration NCT03788525 at https://clinicaltrials.gov [Retrospectively registered; 27th of December, 2018].