Skip to main content
NCBI home page
The BMJ logoLink to The BMJ
. 2002 Oct 5;325(7367):774. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7367.774/a

What is newsworthy?

Bad news from research really is headline news

Lesley Fallowfield 1
PMCID: PMC1124282  PMID: 12364311

Editor—The article by Bartlett et al highlighting the apparent unwillingness of newspaper reporters or their editors to headline good news stories made unsurprising but disappointing reading.1 It mirrored my own impressions and experiences of television and radio reporting about doctors' communication skills. I have lost count of the mumber of times my group is contacted by reporters wanting examples of poor rather than good doctor-patient communication.

The worst example of this was a press release in February this year about a randomised controlled trial we had published in the Lancet.2 The paper showed the efficacy of a communication skills course for oncologists in 34 cancer centres throughout the United Kingdom involving over 2400 patients. I was invited to appear on BBC breakfast television to discuss the exciting beneficial findings and the intention of the Department of Health to implement the findings as part of the NHS cancer plan—or so I thought.

Instead, the interview was completely hijacked by a lengthy report about a patient with a brain tumour who had received bad news insensitively. I was asked to comment on his sorry experiences and given no opportunity to talk about the study and its highly positive findings.

Throughout the day, of the six interviews with radio stations only one, BBC Southern Counties, and an evening television news report on BBC South East (both local programmes) provided any opportunity to make positive comments about doctors and their skills, let alone report the findings of the study.

It has jaundiced my view of anything reported in the lay media, but how can we as doctors refuse to give press briefings or talk to journalists?

References

  • 1.Bartlett C, Sterne J, Egger M. What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ. 2002;325:81–84. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7355.81. . (13 July.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Fallowfield L, Jenkins V, Farewell V, Saul J, Duffy A, Eves R. Efficacy of a Cancer Research UK communication skills training model for oncologists: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;359:650–656. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(02)07810-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
BMJ. 2002 Oct 5;325(7367):774.

Frenzy to feed the media can be bad for patients

Michael Baum 1

Editor—The news item on the premature ending of the women's health initiative study of hormone replacement illustrates the results of Bartlett et al in the same issue of 13 July.1-1,1-2 I was on a lecture tour in North America when the story about the initiative broke1-3 and was able to compare the coverage in the newspapers in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. I also had the advantage of having read the paper in preparation for an interview with a journalist in Toronto.

Without exception all the press, whether broadsheet or tabloid, led with the banner headlines that hormone replacement therapy causes a 26% increase in the incidence of breast cancer and that this was the reason for aborting the trial. Few reports translated this result into the absolute value of eight extra cases for 10 000 women years of exposure, and none mentioned that this was not a new observation but merely reinforced the findings from previous studies.1-4

Furthermore, none of the reports quoted the conclusion in the abstract that makes no mention of the risk of breast cancer: “All cause mortality was not affected during the trial ... this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD [coronary heart disease].” In other words: “Small earthquake in USA—No one dies.”

As predicted, at the first clinic on my return three patients had booked to ask me about this development. They were quickly reassured when I explained that my earlier estimate of risk had to be raised by an extra two cases per 10 000 women years and reminded them that increased incidence does not imply increased mortality.1-5

I hate to think how many lives will be ruined by acute menopausal symptoms or lost through fractured necks of femur as a result of the frenzy to feed the media.

References

  • 1-1.Tanne JH. Hormone trial for disease prevention stopped early. BMJ. 2002;325:61. . (13 July.) [Google Scholar]
  • 1-2.Bartlett C, Sterne J, Egger M. What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ. 2002;325:81–84. doi: 10.1136/bmj.325.7355.81. . (13 July.) [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-3.Risks and benefits of estrogen plus progestin in healthy postmenopausal women: principal results from the women's health initiative randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2002;288:321–323. doi: 10.1001/jama.288.3.321. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-4.Colditz GA, Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ, et al. The use of estrogens and progestins and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 1995;332:1589–1593. doi: 10.1056/NEJM199506153322401. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 1-5.Collaborative Group on Hormonal Factors in Breast Cancer. Breast cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies in 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 without breast cancer. Lancet. 1997;350:1047–1059. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from BMJ : British Medical Journal are provided here courtesy of BMJ Publishing Group

RESOURCES