Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249749

Sick of news? Television news exposure, collective stressful events and headache related emergency department visits

Alina Vodonos 1, Victor Novack 1, Israel Waismel-Manor 2,*, Yacov Ezra 3, Adi Guetta 3, Gal Ifergane 3
Editor: Junaid Ahmad Bhatti4
PMCID: PMC8031395  PMID: 33831069

Abstract

Stress is a well-known trigger for primary headache yet its impact is difficult to demonstrate in large epidemiological studies. Israeli national TV news is often referred to as the “tribal fire”, as many Israelis watch national news coverage following terror attacks or military operations. We examined the association between exposure to television news and their content with headache related Emergency Department visits. This retrospective cohort study included data on daily Emergency Department visits with a chief complaint of headache in Soroka University Medical Center, during 2002–2012. Data on daily television news viewership ratings were obtained from the Israeli Audience Research Board and its content from Channel 2 headlines, the highest rated TV news program. To estimate the short-term effects of news rating during the evening news on the number of daily headache visits, we applied generalized linear mixed models. 16,693 Emergency Department visits were included in the analysis. An increase in five units of daily rating percentages was associated with increase in Emergency Department visits the following day, relative risk (RR) = 1.032, (95% CI 1.014–1.050). This association increased with the age of the patients; RR = 1.119, (95% CI 1.075–1.65) for older than 60-year-old, RR = 1.044 (95% CI 1.010–1.078) for ages 40–60 and RR = 1.000 (95% CI 0.977–1.023) for younger than 40-year-old. We did not find a specific content associated with ED visit for headache. Higher television news ratings were associated with increased incidence of Emergency Department headache related visits. We assume that especially among older persons, news viewership ratings provide an indirect estimate of collective stress, which acts as a headache trigger for susceptible subjects.

Introduction

Non-traumatic headache episodes are a common presenting complaint at emergency departments worldwide [1]. Intracranial pathology is found in only a minority of the patients, and it is therefore believed that most of the ED visits represent primary headache disorders [2].

Many intrinsic precipitating factors for headache episodes in susceptible individuals were reported [38]: afferent stimulation, physical activity, menstrual changes, psychological factors, sleep cycle disorders, and dietary factors, yet none of them can fully account for the variability in the frequency of ED headache related visits. Extrinsic factors such as climate patterns and ambient air pollution was previously reported to be associated with changes in daily headache related ED visits as well [9].

Patients, with both tension and migraine type headaches, often report stress to be one of their major triggers [4, 10]. Although stress is a universal experience, it is difficult to measure the personal level of stress, and it is almost impossible to quantify the level of collective stress, experienced by groups or communities.

A potential source of stress may be the news, particularly bad news. According to Affective Intelligence—AI [11], anxious individuals are motivated to be information seekers, as information may be vital to their own survival. Hence, it is not surprising, that while individuals state they do not appreciate negative news, we witness a tendency to seek such news [12].

News watching in itself might elevate anxiety. A study from the USA where self-reported data was collected, suggested that following the news was one of the biggest daily stressors among individuals who report a high level of stress [13]. Moreover, a recent internet-based survey following the Boston Marathon bombing showed that repeated bombing-related media exposure was associated with higher acute stress than was direct exposure (presence in the bombing area). In addition, watching a 15-minute news segment was enough to trigger persisting negative psychological feelings, which decreased only after a progressive relaxation [14].

In this ecological population based study we sought to evaluate the association between the daily national news consumption and their content with headache related ED visits.

Materials and methods

Study population

The Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC) internal review board approved the study—0361–12. Due to the nature of this study, patients did not sign a consent form. We correlate ER visits to TV ratings using no personal patient information. We obtained data on daily ED visits to SUMC with a primary complaint of headache in patients 18 years or older during a ten-year period (between December 1, 2002 and December 31, 2011). SUMC is a tertiary 1000 bed hospital and the only medical center in the Negev region, serving a population of 700,000 residents. The annual adult ED visits volume is ~100,000. We excluded from the analysis patients hospitalized following the ED visit as we presumed them to have a serious medical problem requiring ED visit unrelated to the stress trigger.

Television news rating data

National Israeli Television news exposure levels were obtained from the Israeli Audience Research Board (IARB), which measures TV viewership ratings using a “people meter” method. In this method, electronic tracking devices are connected to all the television sets in the homes of the panel participants, currently numbering 580 households with approximately 1800 individuals, comprising a representative sample of the television owners in Israel. The device monitors every act of turning on, turning off, and switching between channels on the television sets. Monitoring is performed in real time and continuously throughout the day, 24/7. Daily viewing ratings of the evening news edition in the three major TV news channels were obtained for the study period. Overall, television news consumption in Israel is quite high: 37.3% of Israelis watched in 2012 the evening news [15], in comparison to 27% of Americans who watched the networks’ evening news in the USA [16].

Television news content analysis

To explore which news items generated the highest rating, we collected the first two headlines of Channel 2 evening news, the most watched evening news program, with 60% of all television nightly news viewership [15]. Headline data was available from 2008 till 2012. Two trained coders rated all the first two opening headlines from Channel 2 evening news. Headlines were categorized into seven non-exclusive categories. Categorization of 2,421 headlines into seven non-exclusive categories was performed by two coders which obtained a percent agreement of 92.3%, Cohen’s κ = 0.578 (95% CI, 0.266 to 0.830), p < 0.0001. These categories are Military Conflict and Terrorism (military operations by or against Israel and terrorist attacks against Israelis), Israeli Politics (legislation, campaigns, etc.), Israeli Foreign Relations (peace negotiations, high level meetings or exchanges with foreign leaders and diplomats), Domestic Crime and Scandals, the Economy, World Events (disasters, foreign elections, wars, etc.) and Miscellaneous (all items which did not fit all other categories.

Statistical analysis

Data were summarized using frequency tables for categorical variables and summary statistics (median with inter-quartile range, mean with standard deviation and range) for continuous variables. To estimate the short term effects of daily news rating on number of daily headache ED visits, we applied a generalized linear mixed models (GLMM) methodology described by Szyszkowicz M. et. al. [17]. Poisson random-effects models were utilized to analyze the cluster counts where the groups of days, determined by the triplet (day of the week, month, year) formed the clusters. The hierarchical construction of the clusters allows the model to incorporate level specific random effects. We used the glmmPQL function from the R statistical package to perform the analysis. Relative risk (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) represent the risk for of ED visits for headache associated with an increase in daily news rating adjusted for public holiday days. Additionally, we stratified our analysis by gender and by age groups (<40, 40–60 and >60 years old) to compare the magnitude of the effect. Scatter plot with overlay of LOESS (locally weighted scatter plot smoothing) curve was produced to examine the relationship between daily estimation and predicted daily ED visits with headache. P values less than 0.05 were considered statistically significant. We used R statistical package, v 3.2 to perform the analysis.

Results

The study population comprised 14,010 patients with 16,693 ED visits, with 19.1% of the patients having more than one visit during the study decade. Among them, 57.6% female and 54.3% were younger than 40 years old (Table 1). Mean, median, minimum and maximum daily television rating percentages (the percent of potential viewers who watched the evening news) of all three major news channels during the study period were the following; 29.3±5.2, 29.5, 3 and 51.0, respectively.

Table 1. Frequency of ED visits for headache (2002–2012).

Total Number of Headache ED visits 16,693
Age (years), mean ± SD 41.3 ±18.6
<40, n (%) 9,067 (54.3%)
40–60, n (%) 4,608 (27.6%)
>60, n (%) 3,018 (18.1%)
Gender
Female, n (%) 9,616 (57.6%)
Number of visits per patients, median (Range) 1 (1–31)

Effect of daily news rating on the incidence of headache ED visits

An increase of 5% in daily rating was associated with increase in ED visits the following day, relative risk (RR) = 1.017, (95% CI 1.001–1.033). (Fig 1) but not two and three days after, RR = 0.953(95% CI 0.939–0.967) and RR = 0.990 (95% CI 0.973–1.007), respectively, where the association was protective. This association increased with the age of the patients; RR = 1.119, (95% CI 1.075–1.65) for older than 60-year-old, RR = 1.044 (95% CI 1.010–1.078) for ages 40–60 and RR = 1.000 (95% CI 0.977–1.023) for younger than 40-year-old. In addition, we observed a marginal increase in the effect among female patients, RR = 1.04 (95% CI 1.020–1.068) as compared to men, RR = 1.015 (95% CI 0.990–1.042). The non-linear association between rating estimation the following day and ED visits with headache was expressed as LOESS curve scatter plot (S1 Fig).

Fig 1. Relative Risk (RR) for daily ED visits for headache associated with daily rating percent, among age groups and by male and females.

Fig 1

Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval for ED visits per increase in 5 units of daily rating percentages. Results of the separated Poisson regression models, for study period 2002–2012, adjusted for public holidays.

Similar to the linear analysis, the magnitude of effects observed was larger among older patients. We further examined whether two days of cumulative exposure to high percentage of rating estimates (above 29.5%—median rating percentage) is associated with an additional increase in risk of ED admission. This effect was found only among older patients (over the age of 60); RR = 1.275 (1.172–1.387) (Table 2).

Table 2. Relative Risk (RR) for daily ED visits for headache associated with cumulative exposure over 29.5%* percent in two days preceding the ED visit.

RR** 95%CI
All 0.990 0.952–1.030
Age >60 1.275 1.172–1.387
Age 40–60 1.039 0.967–1.116
Age <40 0.884 0.839–0.933
Male 0.958 0.905–1.015
Female 1.019 0.968–1.072

Content analysis of leading evening news items

News broadcasts that open with reports on military operations and terror attacks against civilians were the most watched news editions over this period (top 10% rating headlines) (S2 Fig). We further analysis the magnitude of the effect of increase in ED visits the following day across different content of the headlines (S1 Table). We did not find a specific content associated with ED visit for headache.

Discussion

In this analysis of more than fifteen thousand headache related ED visits over a decade, we attempted to assess the short term effects of Israeli national news consumption. We demonstrated an association between news consumption and the incidence of headache related ED visits (during the following day. This association was particularly pronounced in patients over 60 years of age. This effect was not related to the content of the news headlines.

Stress is a well-recognized headache trigger, in both migraine and tension type headache. Recently, in a longitudinal study [18] self-report of stress was associated with the frequency of both migraine and tension type headache (an increase of 10 points in stress intensity measured by VAS 0–100 was associated with an increase of 6.0% of TTH frequency and 4.3% for migraine). The effect was higher in younger age groups. Increased headache prevalence was also reported among survivors and responders following major natural or man-made disasters [19, 20].

While stress is a subjective experience affected by multiple biological, psychological and social factors, collective community wide experiences may affect the personal level of stress. The effect of such collective experiences is usually referred to as collective stress [21].

During major national or international crises, the public seeks information. This public attention, which elevates news consumption, may be indicative of increased stress levels. In this sense, the level of news exposure, gauged by television news ratings, can be perceived as a surrogate marker of increased collective stress. On the other hand, widespread media coverage transmits the impact of stressful events to populations not exposed to the event itself, amplifying collective stress and psychological trauma related symptoms. Such effect was demonstrated in several major events and disasters such as the Oklahoma City bombing [22], H1N1 influenza pandemic [23], 1994 California earthquake [24], Boston Marathon bombing [14], the 1990 Gulf War [25], and 9/11 [26]. Therefore, news consumption is not only a marker of collective stress, it is also a collective stress amplifier, contributing by itself to the stress and its effect.

Two mechanisms may explain the association between the collective stress and increased rates of headache associated ED visits. The first is a psychobiological effect, according to which, collective stress is a headache-precipitating factor similar to personal stress, possibly increasing the likelihood of headaches or their severity, resulting in increased rates of ED consultations. The second is a psychosocial effect, increasing the tendency of headache sufferers and their caregivers to seek emergency medical support for headache episodes during high collective stress events.

While the association between personal stress and different types of headaches was especially pronounced in young individuals, in our study, the association was the greatest among individuals older than 60 and had a marginal increase in the effect among female patients. Since TV news exposure is largely influenced by age, with higher exposure rates in the elderly population [27], it is possible that news viewing rates best reflect (or amplify) collective stress levels among older age groups, and not among younger individuals which mostly consume news from new media rather than television. It is also possible that elderly individuals with smaller support networks have a higher tendency to seek emergency medical assistance in high collective stress situations. Moreover, it was suggested that women suffer more stress than men and their coping style is more emotion-focused compared to men [28].

Our study has several important limitations. First, our study does not allow conclusions about the interaction between media consumption, collective stress and headaches. Moreover, Israel is unique in its continuing stressful events lifestyle and its media consumption style, therefore making the generalization of the results to other countries and communities difficult [29]. The nature of the data does not allow differentiating potential differences between TTH and migraine. Lastly, the ecological nature of our study does not allow for the individual assessment of news exposure.

The association of media consumption and headache morbidity should be further studied in different communities and setups. Prospective assessment of this association may provide us with new insights on the association between headache suffering and collective stress and possibly provide us with another possibly modifiable headache trigger.

Supporting information

S1 Fig. Predicted daily ED visits with headache associated with daily rating percent, among age groups and by male and females.

Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval for ED visits per increase in 5 units of daily rating percentages. Results of the separated Poisson regression models, for study period 2002–2012, adjusted for public holidays.

(TIF)

S2 Fig. News headline categories by television ratings.

(TIF)

S1 Table. Relative Risk (RR) for daily ED visits for headache associated with daily raiting percent, by different content of the headlines.

(DOCX)

Data Availability

Data cannot be shared publicly because of medical privacy restrictions. Data are available from the Soroka clinical research center to the reviewers and for all researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Data requests may be sent to Michal Gordon, Ph.D. Director of Data Research at the Soroka Clinical Research Center: Michalgord@clalit.org.il.

Funding Statement

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Ramirez-Lassepas M, Espinosa CE, Cicero JJ, Johnston KL, Cipolle RJ, Barber DL. Predictors of intracranial pathologic findings in patients who seek emergency care because of headache. Arch.Neurol. 1997. December;54(12):1506–1509. 10.1001/archneur.1997.00550240058013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Gilbert JW, Johnson KM, Larkin GL, Moore CL. Atraumatic headache in US emergency departments: recent trends in CT/MRI utilisation and factors associated with severe intracranial pathology. Emerg.Med.J. 2012. July;29(7):576–581. 10.1136/emermed-2011-200088 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Wöber C, Holzhammer J, Zeitlhofer J, Wessely P, Wöber-Bingöl Ç. Trigger factors of migraine and tension-type headache: experience and knowledge of the patients. J Headache Pain 2006;7(4):188–195. 10.1007/s10194-006-0305-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Rasmussen BK. Migraine and tension-type headache in a general population: precipitating factors, female hormones, sleep pattern and relation to lifestyle. Pain 1993;53(1):65–72. 10.1016/0304-3959(93)90057-V [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Zivadinov R, Willheim K, Sepic-Grahovac D, Jurjevic A, Bucuk M, Brnabic-Razmilic O, et al. Migraine and tension-type headache in Croatia: a population-based survey of precipitating factors. Cephalalgia 2003;23(5):336–343. 10.1046/j.1468-2982.2003.00544.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Spierings EL, Ranke AH, Honkoop PC. Precipitating and Aggravating Factors of Migraine Versus Tension-type Headache. Headache 2001;41(6):554–558. 10.1046/j.1526-4610.2001.041006554.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Turner L, Molgaard C, Gardner C, Rothrock J, Stang P. Migraine trigger factors in a non-clinical Mexican-American population in San Diego county: implications for etiology. Cephalalgia 1995;15(6):523–530. 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1995.1506523.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Robbins L. Precipitating factors in migraine: a retrospective review of 494 patients. Headache 1994;34(4):214–216. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.1994.hed3404214.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Vodonos A, Novack V, Zlotnik Y, Ifergane G. Ambient air pollution, weather and daily emergency department visits for headache. Cephalalgia 2015. October;35(12):1085–1091. 10.1177/0333102415570300 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Boardman HF, Thomas E, Millson DS, Croft P. Psychological, sleep, lifestyle, and comorbid associations with headache. Headache 2005;45(6):657–669. 10.1111/j.1526-4610.2005.05133.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Marcus GE, Neuman WR, MacKuen M. Affective intelligence and political judgment. University of Chicago Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Trussler M, Soroka S. Consumer demand for cynical and negative news frames. Int J Press Polit 2014;19(3):360–379. [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Blendon R, Steel Fisher G, Weldon K, Benson J, Brule M, Mann F, et al. The burden of stress in America. NPR/Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Harvard School of Public Health 2014:1–12.
  • 14.Holman EA, Garfin DR, Silver RC. Media’s role in broadcasting acute stress following the Boston Marathon bombings. Proc.Natl.Acad.Sci.U.S.A. 2014. January 7;111(1):93–98. 10.1073/pnas.1316265110 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Mann R, Lev-On A. Annual report: The media in Israel 2012: Agendas, uses and trends. The Institute for the Study of New Media, Politics and Society, 2013.
  • 16.Kohut A, Doherty C, Dimock M, Keeter S. In changing news landscape, even television is vulnerable. Pew Internet & American Life Project 2012. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Szyszkowicz M. Use of generalized linear mixed models to examine the association between air pollution and health outcomes. Int.J.Occup.Med.Environ.Health 2006;19(4):224–227. 10.2478/v10001-006-0032-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Schramm SH, Moebus S, Lehmann N, Galli U, Obermann M, Bock E, et al. The association between stress and headache: A longitudinal population-based study. Cephalalgia 2015;35(10):853–863. 10.1177/0333102414563087 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Guetti C, Angeletti C, Papola R, Petrucci E, Ursini ML, Ciccozzi A, et al. Headache prevalence in the population of L’Aquila (Italy) after the 2009 earthquake. J Headache Pain 2011;12(2):245–250. 10.1007/s10194-011-0311-y [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Berríos-Torres SI, Greenko JA, Phillips M, Miller JR, Treadwell T, Ikeda RM. World Trade Center rescue worker injury and illness surveillance, New York, 2001. Am.J.Prev.Med. 2003;25(2):79–87. 10.1016/s0749-3797(03)00110-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Gillespie DF. Barton’s theory of collective stress is a classic and worth testing. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters 1988;6(3):345–361. [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Pfefferbaum B, Nixon SJ, Tivis RD, Doughty DE, Pynoos RS, Gurwitch RH, et al. Television exposure in children after a terrorist incident. Psychiatry 2001;64(3):202–211. 10.1521/psyc.64.3.202.18462 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Codish S, Novack L, Dreiher J, Barski L, Jotkowitz A, Zeller L, et al. Impact of mass media on public behavior and physicians: an ecological study of the H1N1 influenza pandemic. Infect Control Hosp Epidemiol 2014;35(06):709–716. 10.1086/676426 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Leor J, Poole WK, Kloner RA. Sudden cardiac death triggered by an earthquake. N.Engl.J.Med. 1996;334(7):413–419. 10.1056/NEJM199602153340701 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Cantor J, Mares M, Oliver M. Desert Storm and the Mass Media, eds Greenberg B. Gantz W (Hampton, Cresskill, NJ) 1993:325–340.
  • 26.Ahern J, Galea S, Resnick H, Kilpatrick D, Bucuvalas M, Gold J, et al. Television images and psychological symptoms after the September 11 terrorist attacks. Psychiatry 2002;65(4):289–300. 10.1521/psyc.65.4.289.20240 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Wonneberger A, Schoenbach K, van Meurs L. Staying tuned: TV news audiences in the Netherlands 1988–2010. J Broadcast Electron Media 2012;56(1):55–74. [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Matud MP. Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Pers Individ Dif 2004;37(7):1401–1415. [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Doron G. The politics of mass communication in Israel. Ann.Am.Acad.Pol.Soc.Sci. 1998;555(1):163–179. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

George Vousden

10 Jul 2020

PONE-D-20-00517

Sick of news? Television news exposure and headache related emergency department visits

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. waismel-manor,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The manuscript has been evaluated by three reviewers, and their comments are available below.

The reviewers have raised a number of concerns that need attention. The reviewers have suggested changes to the abstract and further details regarding the primary outcome measure. As reviewer #1 notes, the study cannot disentangle the effects of watching the news and stressful events occurring within the community. Since either could explain the results, the title should be revised and this limitation addressed in the Introduction and Discussion sections. Regarding the title, my recommendation would be to remove “Sick of news?”.

Could you please revise the manuscript to carefully address the concerns raised?

Please submit your revised manuscript by Aug 24 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

George Vousden

Senior Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents the ecologic association of television news ratings and emergency department visits for headache in a tertiary care hospital in Israel. Headache visits were found to be slightly more common on the day following a day with higher television news ratings. The association was slightly stronger among older adults.

Television news ratings seem to be conceptualized as both a marker of community stressful events and as a potential cause of stress. It would be helpful to state this more clearly in the introduction. Given the inability to differentiate between the two possible mechanisms, I would revise the title.

Please provide more detail on how primary complaint of headache was identified. Is this based on a standardized coding system?

It would be helpful to formally test for interaction of news ratings with age and gender.

It is not clear to me what exactly is presented in Supplemental Figures 1 and 2.

I did not have access to the supplemental table to review.

Line 219. Please elaborate on the unique aspects of media consumption in Israel.

Reviewer #2: This study evaluated the association between news category and ER headache visit. The authors found that an increase in five units of daily rating percentages was associated with increase in Emergency Department visits the following day. I am hoping to comment several points.

1. The authors described that they categorized headline news by category. However, there was only few descriptions for "increase in 5 units of daily rating percentage". Consider revision for more description for this issue at METHODS for better under standing

2. The authors analyzed the association between all headaches and news contents. Two common primary headaches, migraine and tension-type headache, have different triggering factors in addition to clinical differences. Therefore, migraine and TTH may show different pattern to stressful news. It would be more valuable if additional analyses for the difference in the association between ER headache visit and stressful news. If it is not possible, consider additional description as a limitation of this study.

3. One of limitation of this study is the setting of the study. The data of this study were collected in a single university hospital in Israel. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize. This could be a limitation of this study.

4. Trivia. Decimal point issue. Some decimal points were needed to revise collectively. 41.25±18.6 -> 41.3±18.6.

Reviewer #3: The authors examined the relation between TV news and emergency department visits because of headache.

The study covered almost a decade and included a total of 16,693 emergency department visits.

The study is interesting, but study objectives and methods require more clarity and the authors should avoid selective reporting in the abstract.

In the abstract and in the introduction, the authors should specify the objectives of the study, namely to analyze the relation between emergency room visits because of headache and (1) the daily rate of persons watching TV news and (2) the content of the news.

Throughout the paper, the authors should avoid phrases such as “rating percentages”. Such terms are ambiguous and leave open what the rating refers to.

The lack of an association between news content and emergency room visits because of headache must be reported in the abstract.

The low rate of TV news consumers (less then 30 %) should also be reported in the abstract and mentioned in the discussion.

In the abstract and in the results, the authors should check following finding, “This association increased with the age of the patients; RR =1.119, (95% CI 1.014; 1.050) …“ The confidence interval cannot be smaller than the RR.

In the paragraph on the limitations of the study, the authors should replace the general statement, “Our ability to understand the interaction between media consumption, collective stress and headache in relation to the different news contents is limited” by a statement specifically related to their study such as, “Our study does not allow conclusions about the interaction between media consumption, collective stress and headache.”

The English text needs some editing.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof Çiçek Wöber-Bingöl, MD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249749.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


30 Oct 2020

September 19th, 2020

Manuscript #: PONE-D-20-00517

Entitled; Sick of news? Television news exposure and headache related emergency department visits

Dear Dr. Joerg Heber, PhD

Editor in chief, PLOS ONE

Please see our revised submission of the manuscript entitled "Sick of news? Television news exposure and headache related emergency department visits." We have carefully reviewed the comments of the reviewers, and would like to thank them for their thoughtful suggestions, which we think have substantially improved the quality of our manuscript. We have addressed the comments below in this letter, and in the revised manuscript attached. Please note, we have submitted both the revised version with the ‘track changes’ mode, as well as a ‘clean’ copy.

We sincerely hope the revisions made will meet your approval.

Looking forward to hearing from you,

Israel Waismel-Manor, PhD

Corresponding author

Reviewer #1: This manuscript presents the ecologic association of television news ratings and emergency department visits for headache in a tertiary care hospital in Israel. Headache visits were found to be slightly more common on the day following a day with higher television news ratings. The association was slightly stronger among older adults.

Comment:

Television news ratings seem to be conceptualized as both a marker of community stressful events and as a potential cause of stress. It would be helpful to state this more clearly in the introduction. Given the inability to differentiate between the two possible mechanisms, I would revise the title.

Answer:

Thank you for this. Indeed, it is a correlation and the previous title implies there is one. Therefore, we changed it to “Sick of news? Television news exposure, collective stressful events and headache related emergency department visits”.

We used the phrase “Sick of News” as a catchy phrase, a trigger, but the question mark following it indicates we have no causal claim, and the revised second part of the title is now even clearer.

Comment:

Please provide more detail on how primary complaint of headache was identified. Is this based on a standardized coding system?

Answer:

We analyzed admitted to ED (emergency department) with a chief complaint of headache, but excluded from the analysis all cases that were hospitalized following the ED visit.

Comment:

It would be helpful to formally test for interaction of news ratings with age and gender.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for this suggestion. However, since this is an ecological /aggregated time series analysis, (not individual age and gender units) we are limited in our ability to test the interaction of individual characteristics beyond the method of examining the magnitude of the effect within a subset of different age and gender groups.

Comment:

It is not clear to me what exactly is presented in Supplemental Figures 1 and 2.

I did not have access to the supplemental table to review.

Answer:

Supplemental Figure 1 presents the Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval for ED visits per increase in 5 units of daily rating percentages for all, different age groups and per different genders. Results of the separated Poisson regression models, for study period 2002-2012, adjusted for public holidays

Supplemental Figure 2- presents the “News Headline Categories by Television Ratings” Subsection “Content Analysis of Leading Evening News Items” was rewritten.

Comment:

Line 219. Please elaborate on the unique aspects of media consumption in Israel.

Answer:

We appreciate pointing it out. Sometimes we are so immersed in our own case that we forget it is meant for a general audience. We have modified the “Television News Rating Data” and the “Television News Content Analysis” to explain that 1) the 8 pm evening TV news consumption is Israel is quite high (almost 40% more than the and 6:30 pm evening news in the US, and that 2) Channel 2, the Channel selected for the content analysis is the most watched (and best represents) of the three channels, controlling 60% of the market.

Comment:

Reviewer #2: This study evaluated the association between news category and ER headache visit. The authors found that an increase in five units of daily rating percentages was associated with increase in Emergency Department visits the following day. I am hoping to comment several points.

1. The authors described that they categorized headline news by category. However, there was only few descriptions for "increase in 5 units of daily rating percentage". Consider revision for more description for this issue at METHODS for better under standing

Answer: Association between increase in 5 units of daily rating percentage per different content of the headline groups was presented in Table 1 in the supplemental material.

Comment:

2. The authors analyzed the association between all headaches and news contents. Two common primary headaches, migraine and tension-type headache, have different triggering factors in addition to clinical differences. Therefore, migraine and TTH may show different pattern to stressful news. It would be more valuable if additional analyses for the difference in the association between ER headache visit and stressful news. If it is not possible, consider additional description as a limitation of this study.

Answer:

As stated in the introduction and methods sections, headache phenotype is not available for analysis in this analysis. We elaborated on the effects of stress on both types of primary headaches. According to the reviewers’ suggestion, we listed it as a limitation of the study in the discussion section.

Comment:

3. One of limitation of this study is the setting of the study. The data of this study were collected in a single university hospital in Israel. Therefore, it is difficult to generalize. This could be a limitation of this study.

Answer:

As we mentioned in the text, we obtained data on daily ED visits to Soroka University Medical Center (SUMC). SUMC is a tertiary 1000 bed hospital and the only medical center in the Negev region, and provides medical services to the over one million residents of the region which covers 60% of the geographical area of the country. Thus, this unique setting resolves the generalization question.

Comment:

4. Trivia. Decimal point issue. Some decimal points were needed to revise collectively. 41.25±18.6 -> 41.3±18.6.

Answer:

Thank you for this point. We revised the manuscript accordingly.

Reviewer #3: The authors examined the relation between TV news and emergency department visits because of headache. The study covered almost a decade and included a total of 16,693 emergency department visits.

The study is interesting, but study objectives and methods require more clarity and the authors should avoid selective reporting in the abstract.

Comment

In the abstract and in the introduction, the authors should specify the objectives of the study, namely to analyze the relation between emergency room visits because of headache and (1) the daily rate of persons watching TV news and (2) the content of the news.

Answer:

We thank the reviewer for suggesting this clarification of the objectives of the study. We rephrased the abstract the introduction in the following phrasing:

“In this ecological population based study we sought to evaluate the association between the daily national news consumption and their content with headache related ED visits. “

Throughout the paper, the authors should avoid phrases such as “rating percentages”. Such terms are ambiguous and leave open what the rating refers to.

The lack of an association between news content and emergency room visits because of headache must be reported in the abstract.

Answer:

We added the finding of lack of an association between news content and emergency room visits in the abstract as well as in the full text.

Comment

The low rate of TV news consumers (less than 30 %) should also be reported in the abstract and mentioned in the discussion.

Answer:

We assume this 30% estimate derives from the explanation about the people meter, which monitors 580 representative Israeli households, with an average of about 3 residents per household, with a total of about 1800 individuals in them (TV News ratings for this period were about 37% of the population). This rating is actually quite high in comparison to other countries like the US, where ratings were about 27% at that time.

Even today, after a major shift to news online and on social media and other mobile platforms, evening TV news viewership in Israel is about 15% of the Israeli population (https://www.the7eye.org.il/rating/387893 ). In the US the number of Americans who are currently watching the evening news in all major networks combined is 31 million, or less than 10% (https://www.poynter.org/newsletters/2020/america-is-watching-the-evening-news-again-tv-news-numbers-are-up-way-up/ ) and in Britain, BBC news, the most viewed TV news program, has an average audience of 5.2 million viewers, less than 8% of its population, (https://pressgazette.co.uk/coronavirus-leads-to-staggering-demand-for-trusted-tv-news/).

We analyzed Channel 2 headlines because it is the most watched news program on Israeli television, with an average viewership at that time of about 22.4% of the total population (with Channel 10 holding 10.4% and Channel 1 with 4.9%). With such a market domination, we are confident that Channel two still serves as Israel’s “tribal fire” and is quite indicative of the national media menu Israelis consume, representing the topics that capture the public’s interest on a given day. We have clarified the abstract and the body of the manuscript to explain this.

Comment

In the abstract and in the results, the authors should check following finding, “This association increased with the age of the patients; RR =1.119, (95% CI 1.014; 1.050) …“ The confidence interval cannot be smaller than the RR.

Answer:

Thank you for pointing out, this is indeed a typo. The true confidence interval is RR =1.119, (95% CI 1.075; 1.65) . We revised the manuscript accordingly. Page 2 and Page7.

Comment

In the paragraph on the limitations of the study, the authors should replace the general statement, “Our ability to understand the interaction between media consumption, collective stress and headache in relation to the different news contents is limited” by a statement specifically related to their study such as, “Our study does not allow conclusions about the interaction between media consumption, collective stress and headache.”

Answer:

This is an important point. While we intended to suggest that this is a correlative study, and that we cannot make causal inferences, this sentence was not clear enough. We adopted the reviewer’s wording to better reflect our study’s limitations.

Decision Letter 1

Junaid Ahmad Bhatti

4 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-00517R1

Sick of news? Television news exposure, collective stressful events and headache related emergency department visits

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. waismel-manor,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 21 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Junaid Ahmad Bhatti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (if provided):

The revised version has received favorable reviews. Kindly revise the manuscript as per the suggestions for minor revisions.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: No

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: The authors properly addressed all the points mentioned in the previous review. The authors also adequately revised the manuscript after the previous review.

Reviewer #3: The authors followed the reviewer's suggestions. Only one sentence in the abstract and results still needs revision.

"This association increased with the age of the patients; RR =1.119, (95% CI 1.075; 1.065) for older than 60-year-old, RR=1.044 (95% CI 1.010-1.078) for ages 40-60 and RR= 1.000 (95% CI 0.977-1.023) for younger than 40-year-old.

There is still a problem with the 95% CI in the older persons!

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes: Prof Çiçek Wöber-Bingöl, MD

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Apr 8;16(4):e0249749. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0249749.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


1 Mar 2021

Reviewer #3: The authors followed the reviewer's suggestions. Only one sentence in the abstract and results still needs revision.

"This association increased with the age of the patients; RR =1.119, (95% CI 1.075; 1.065) for older than 60-year-old, RR=1.044 (95% CI 1.010-1.078) for ages 40-60 and RR= 1.000 (95% CI 0.977-1.023) for younger than 40-year-old.

There is still a problem with the 95% CI in the older persons!

Response:

We kindly apologize for not fixing the typo: The true confidence interval for older persons is RR =1.119, (95% CI 1.075; 1.65) . We revised the manuscript accordingly. Page 2 and Page 7.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2 Feb 2021.docx

Decision Letter 2

Junaid Ahmad Bhatti

25 Mar 2021

Sick of news? Television news exposure, collective stressful events and headache related emergency department visits

PONE-D-20-00517R2

Dear Dr. waismel-manor,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Junaid Ahmad Bhatti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Junaid Ahmad Bhatti

29 Mar 2021

PONE-D-20-00517R2

Sick of news? Television news exposure, collective stressful events and headache related emergency department visits

Dear Dr. Waismel-Manor:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Junaid Ahmad Bhatti

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Fig. Predicted daily ED visits with headache associated with daily rating percent, among age groups and by male and females.

    Relative Risk (RR) and 95% Confidence Interval for ED visits per increase in 5 units of daily rating percentages. Results of the separated Poisson regression models, for study period 2002–2012, adjusted for public holidays.

    (TIF)

    S2 Fig. News headline categories by television ratings.

    (TIF)

    S1 Table. Relative Risk (RR) for daily ED visits for headache associated with daily raiting percent, by different content of the headlines.

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers R2 Feb 2021.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    Data cannot be shared publicly because of medical privacy restrictions. Data are available from the Soroka clinical research center to the reviewers and for all researchers who meet the criteria for access to confidential data. Data requests may be sent to Michal Gordon, Ph.D. Director of Data Research at the Soroka Clinical Research Center: Michalgord@clalit.org.il.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES