Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether the media are providing information to the public about important medical advances in a timely manner and whether the degree of importance is associated with other aspects of newspaper reporting (presence, extent, and prominence).
DESIGN: The authors explored the amount, extent, prominence, and timeliness of newspaper coverage received byNew England Journal of Medicine andJAMA articles published in 1988, by searching ten leading U.S. newspapers. The journal articles were independently rated based on the public’s need to know the medical information contained in the article. The intraclass reliability coefficient for this need-to-know importance score was 0.77.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Overall, 35% of the journal articles received newspaper coverage (276/786). The articles were frequently covered by more than one newspaper [extensive coverage (161/276, 58%)] and often appeared on the front page [prominent coverage (42/276, 15%)]. Articles considered most important to the public (92/786, 12%) received more extensive and prominent coverage than did less important articles (p<0.01). More than three fourths of the newspaper stories appeared within two days of the journal article’s issue date. Stories about the most important articles appeared sooner than did those about the less important articles (p<0.0001).
CONCLUSIONS: Articles reported in two prominent medical journals are often viewed as being important to the public, and these articles are receiving newspaper coverage that is extensive, prominent, and timely. This is particularly true for those articles considered most important to the public.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
International Committee of Medical Journal Editors. Medical journals and the popular media. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:1283.
Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. Medical researchers and the media. Attitudes toward public dissemination of research. JAMA. 1992;268:999–1003.
Koren G, Klein N. Bias against negative studies in newspaper reports of medical research. JAMA. 1991;266:1824–6.
Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL. Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med. 1991;325:1180–3.
Klaidman S, Beauchamp TL. The Virtuous Journalist. New York: Oxford University Press. 1987:30–57.
Klaidman S, Beauchamp TL. Baby Jane Doe in the Media. J Health Polit. Policy Law. 1986;11:271–84.
Lohey MA, Dommy RG, Saal FE. Intraclass correlations: there’s more than meets the eye. Psychol Bull. 1983;93:586–95.
Winkler JD, Kanouse DE, Brodsley L, Brook RH. Popular press coverage of eight National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Topics. JAMA. 1986;255:1323–7.
Nelkin D. How to doctor the media. New Sci. 1986;112:51–6.
Relman AS. Reporting the aspirin study. The journal and the media. N Engl J Med. 1988;318:918–20.
Relman AS. The Ingelfinger rule. N Engl J Med. 1981;305:824–6.
Dickerson K, Min YI, Meiner CL. Factors influencing publication of research results. Follow-up of applications submitted to two institutional review boards. JAMA. 1992;267:374–8.
Dan BB. One-minute medicine. JAMA. 1987;257:2798.
Johnson GT. Media. JAMA. 1987;258:2303–4.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Supported by an NIH Biomedical Research and Support Grant (#S07RR05487-27).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Burns, R.B., Moskowitz, M.A., Osband, M.A. et al. Newspaper reporting of the medical literature. J Gen Intern Med 10, 19–24 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599571
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02599571