How to find facts you can trust - - -
Start by being cautious of the broadcast media.
--------------Ever wondered how they come up with
--------------the headlines for the evening news?
Dr. Kimberly Thompson, who is on the adjunct faculty of the Harvard School of Public Health, has written a very useful 8-page Consumer's Guide to Taking Charge of Health Information which is freely available to anyone interested in making sense of the barrage of health information reported by the popular media every day. I won't repeat what she says in this very readable guide - READ IT FOR YOURSELF; but, I will add a few personal observations on the topics covered:
Is the reporting reliable? - The guide discusses of how "spin", "bias", and "coverage" can influence how a story is reported. Another important topic, however, isn't mentioned - i.e. the education/experience of the reporter. Does the reporter covering the story understand what the story is about? Naive reporters can over simplify and/or confuse the facts. And, this can be a significant problem especially in news organizations where, for example, a reporter doing celebrity gossip one day may be assigned to cover a health news story the next.
Is the information reported reliable? - This is probably the most useful section in the guide - i.e. what are "more reliable" vs. "less reliable" sources of information. There are two comments I would add:. 1) apparently, it's human nature to trust what people say more than what scientific research says - hence all the personal testimonials in TV ads. People need to resist the tempation to go with their "gut instincts" when reliable evidence is available -and- 2) not surprisingly, many reporters like to go to medical meetings so they can scoop the competition and report on the latest research. BUT, much of the research reported there hasn't been published yet, so it hasn't been subjected to peer review. Thus, research reported at meetings falls in the "less reliable" category.
What do the numbers mean? -and- Do I need to worry? - On one hand, reporters love to include statistics in their stories because it lends an air of authority to their reporting. On the other hand, it's rare for researchers to have absolute confidence in their numerical results so they are typically reported along with a "P Value" that indicates how confident the scientists are in their numbers and sometimes the results reported may NOT be strongly supported by the data. Reporters often neglect to mention this in their stories either because they don't understand it or they don't want to ruin what would otherwise be a good story (reporters who are any good with numbers usually report the business news).
Reporters are also often clueless about "risk factors". If a particular factor increases the risk of death by 100%, many reporters would lead you to believe you are doomed if you don't avoid whatever risk they're writing about. BUT, if 1 person in a thousand is dying from something and some factor increases the risk of death by 100%, that only means 2 people per thousand are likely die. Don't let some news report by a reporter of unknown qualifications panic you - especially if you don't understand statistics. Talk to someone more knowledgeable than yourself - like your doctor - then you can panic if warranted.
Does the information "matter"? - That depends on the relevance of the information - i.e. how likely it is to directly/immediately impact you or those you love. For example, if you come from a family with a history of breast cancer, a news article reporting a cure for breast cancer -- in mice, while interesting, doesn't "matter" right now (though the research may lead to a cure in humans someday).
It also depends on whether the information is "actionable" or not - i.e. how likely it is you will be able use that information to develop an action plan. A news article that reports the risk of diabetes is higher for African-Americans or Hispanic-Americans, for example, is certainly of interest if you have friends in those ethnic groups; but, until people can change their ethnicity, there isn't much anyone can do - the article doesn't "matter". However, if a news article reports the risk of diabetes is higher in people who are overweight and you have family members or good friends who are overweight African or Hispanic-Americans - the article does "matter" (if you care enough to tell them about it).
One other thing to keep in mind is: things that "matter" aren't always in the news, and things that are in the news don't always "matter". So, don't get carried away by media hype like what happened in the past with bird flu and mad cow disease. So far, they haven't killed ANYBODY in the US. However, you should worry about plain flu and pneumonia which kills over 50,000 people and cow meat that contributes to over 750,000 heart attack and stroke deaths every year.
I've found some reliable news that "matters", what next? - The Consumer's Guide does a good job on this topic and addresses ways to develop action plans (including "trade-offs" - i.e. developing action plans that you can live with), what to do when you don't have enough information to decide what needs to go into your action plan, and general guidance on places to go to find that information. To facilitate that process, I've posted links to a number of reliable news sources and information resources in the sidebar on the left side of this blog. Look at it from time to time because I intend to keep adding to the lists.
Some time in the not too distant future, I plan to post the specific guidelines I use for "Finding Reliable Health News Online" and for knowing "Where NOT To Get Health News Online".
[NOTE: A fair number of links are included in this post: AHA links to the American Heart Association, NIH links to the National Heart, Lung, & Blood Institute, OTH links to Other Websites]
Posts
