Good News, Bad News, No News

We sit at our kitchen tables in the morning poring over the front page of the paper, or in our cars on the way to work listening to the morning rush hour report, or in front of our computer screens during lunch reading the latest news blips or in our dens at night watching the evening talking heads. No matter your preferred media outlet for imbibing information, you are subject to stories of the latest, greatest research findings in health and medicine: Dark chocolate heals hypertension; red wine slows aging; barbecue causes cancer; blueberries boost brain power; dogs detect colon cancer; and on and on.

For years, journalists in the mainstream media have reported research findings, such as the benefits of eating more fruits and vegetables, the importance of daily exercise and the effects of various vitamins. But how does that information get from the lab to the storylines of reporters to the attention of the public? And why is the information condensed and released in fragments, giving the impression that an entire study was undertaken and completed between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. last Thursday?

 

Media Selection of Health News

Dr. Clinton Amos, Cree Walker Chair of Business Administration at Augusta State University, who earned his doctorate in marketing from the University of North Texas, notes that a few factors are at play. For one thing, researchers and the public relations departments of their respective institutions generally release the most compelling findings from studies—the data that best supports the original hypothesis. Although a multitude of data may have been collected, only that which has an immediate and significant impact, improving the probability of being picked up by the news media, will be highlighted. “There’s an element of persuasion in getting research findings into the media,” says Dr. Amos. As in any industry, competition to be seen and heard shapes the message.

Sorting through all of the possible news to report for any one day, national media outlets tend to select health research findings that have a broad appeal so as to attract a larger audience. The media, too, is driven by competition. Therefore, expect to be presented with what you want to hear. In other words, “Things that appeal to people’s hedonic motivations—the ones that relate to effortlessness and immediate results,” says Dr. Amos.

But it often seems as though months, even years, worth of data collection and analysis are boiled down to three sentences or less. “Story length is based on proximity or interest,” says Alan English, executive editor of The Augusta Chronicle. In areas closer to the source of the research findings, longer stories are produced. As the story trickles out to the mainstream media, it may get cut down to the bare bones of the original press release to accommodate space and time limitations within which journalists must work.

 

Understanding Health News

Unfortunately, in the wake of release, selection and presentation, all of which happen in relatively swift succession, certain nuances of the research process and the take-away value of the research are lost. Consider, for example, the difference between causation and correlation. When presented with research suggesting that fathers who play with their children have better marital relationships, many people immediately jump to the conclusion that playing with offspring causes a man to invest more in his marriage. In actuality, the only definite conclusion researchers can draw is that as playtime increases (factor A), so does self-reported marital satisfaction (factor B). A could cause B. B could cause A. Or some other unknown variable, factor C, could cause A and B. Furthermore, there could be a fourth factor D, which causes A while C causes B. Moreover, unless the results are corroborated by several other similar studies, it’s difficult to determine the accuracy of the findings for the population sampled, much less the general population.

Confusing, isn’t it? Simply stated, causation implies a direct relationship. One event makes another occur. Correlation, however, means that as one variable, for example, smoking, increases or decreases so does another, for example, alcoholism. Smoking, nonetheless, does not necessarily cause alcoholism. Because causation is near impossible to prove, researchers use correlation analyses to support their hypotheses. “This means you have to look at the bigger picture,” says Dr. Amos. “Look at multiple studies that give a more holistic view.”

Another issue with health news is that the media, as well as consumers, seldom clarify the difference between relative values and absolute values. In regard to health insurance, in September, 2010, it was reported that the nation’s uninsured hit a record high at 50.7 million. Dr. Amos says, “That is the absolute number of people without healthcare coverage, but in terms of relative percentage of population, the number of people has not changed.”

Thus, reporters might cite the exact number of cases of a certain disease recorded for a calendar year and that the number is dramatically higher than 10 years ago, which leads the public to believe that it is a health crisis. But without putting that number into context of how the population has changed over the past decade, it is difficult to discern whether the disease presents a true concern or, rather, if its incidence actually remained unchanged or even declined. “In many cases,” says Dr. Amos, “the media don’t have the information to report the relative figures.”

 

Reacting to Health News

This is a nation defined by consumerism, which is why people watch television, listen to the radio, read newspapers and scour the Internet for information. People seek the next greatest thing that will enable them to be bigger, better, faster, more. Our reactions to health news, and how we interpret it and act on it, or on the other hand ignore it, have to do with three typical ways in which people process new ideas, says Dr. Amos.

•    Psychological Reactance.We react negatively to anything that contradicts our strong beliefs. For example, a study finding that barbecue is unhealthy would likely be ignored by people who enjoy grilling out or who prefer the flavor of meat cooked over coals.

•     Selective Perception. We pay attention to, and readily accept, information that is consistent with our own beliefs. In addition, we are prone to distort information in order to make it jive with our values. For example, chocolate lovers are not only inclined to embrace the data supporting chocolate as a nutritious addition to a balanced diet, but also to consume more chocolate than studies suggest is necessary.

•     Expectation vs. Experience. When experience doesn’t match expectations, we quickly abandon any change we’ve made based on health news. Learning that blueberries may reduce belly fat might initially inspire eating a wealth of blueberries. But if belly fat isn’t shed rapidly enough, the new behavior will probably fall by the wayside.

Regardless of sometimes confusing media reports paired with consumer misinterpretations or misuse, health news is an important and valuable commodity. English views it not as simply interesting additions to the daily paper, but as an essential tool for introducing new research findings into the public forum for analysis and debate, citing specifically the 2009 recommendation by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force that routine mammogram screening in women under 50 be eliminated and that women ages 50 to 74 only receive mammograms every two years. “It places research in the public forum for scrutiny and review, a necessary part of scientific discovery and testing hypotheses,” says English. Citizens can then participate in the formation of public policy.

 

Wise Consumerism

Nonetheless, to participate in either public debate or to use health news wisely to your personal benefit, intelligent consumerism must first transpire. This means monitoring gut reactions to particular pieces of health news, carefully comparing the substance of a news report to other available research findings, considering the real meaning of the research in terms of correlation versus causation and absolute versus relative numbers, consulting an expert on specific health topics, engaging in activities that help resolve the discrepancy between expectations and experience, and proceeding with caution.

“Information in any publication is a starting point,” says English. Dr. Amos agrees, saying, “Don’t get caught up in headlines.” Remain mindful that research is an ongoing process and that five years from now, when you’re watching the nightly news, reading the paper, staring at your monitor or listening to your radio, you may find out that what was reported as good for us or bad for us today may be totally reversed tomorrow.

Lucy Adams is a freelance writer and the author of Tuck Your Skirt in Your Panties and Run.