A group of Australian academics and clinicians have put medical reporting of new treatments under the microscope with Media Doctor (www.mediadoctor.org.au).
Funded by the Newcastle Institute of Public Health, Media Doctor reviews a selection of current news items about medical treatments, assesses their quality using a standardized rating scale and presents reviews of good and bad examples. Researchers use 10 criteria to rate such attributes as the novelty of the treatment, alternatives mentioned, whether there is evidence of disease mongering, whether the benefits and harms were fairly reported and whether conflicts of interest or costs are mentioned.
Media Doctor expects these independent and objective critiques will improve the accuracy of medical reporting.
One of the sites' founders, Dr. David Henry, a professor of clinical pharmacology at the University of Newcastle, says improved standards of journalism are definitely needed because of the potential for harm an erroneous article can yield and the powerful vested interests in health technologies.
Generally, news coverage of new medical treatments is regarded as poor and is prone to exaggeration, Media Doctor states.
Plans are already under way to improve the site, including providing more detailed information on specific health coverage to senior media staff.
Media Doctor now focuses on the Australian media, but André Picard, a Globe and Mail health reporter, thinks Canadians would “absolutely” be interested in a similar service. “I think a Media Doctor, if it is consistent and fair, would be well-read and influential — though perhaps journalists would be reluctant to admit that is the case!”
Researchers in Pakistan, New Zealand and Canada have all expressed interest in replicating the service. Henry says he'd be delighted to see other countries evaluate their health journalism so that international comparisons could be made. — Alan Cassels, Victoria