Advertisement

The Media and Clinical Research

  • Stephen P. Glasser

Abstract

The news media are an increasingly important source of information about new medical treatments. The media can be persuasive, pervasive, and can influence health care beliefs and behaviors. This chapter briefly addresses the maturation process of medical controversy, discusses some of the reasons for the “tension” that develops between scientists and the media, and hopefully allows the reader when they are asked to discuss their research findings, to develop some strategies for dealing with the media.

Keywords

Heart Rate Response News Medium Mayo Clin Proc Carotid Artery Disease Prevent Heart Attack Trial 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Fishman JM, Casarett D. Mass media and medicine: when the most trusted media mislead. Mayo Clin Proc. Mar 2006; 81(3):291–293.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Caspermeyer JJ, Sylvester EJ, Drazkowski JF, Watson GL, Sirven JI. Evaluation of stigmatizing language and medical errors in neurology coverage by US newspapers. Mayo Clin Proc. Mar 2006; 81(3):300–306.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. June 1, 2000; 342(22):1645–1650.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Psaty BM, Heckbert SR, Koepsell TD, et al. The risk of myocardial infarction associated with antihypertensive drug therapies. JAMA. Aug 23–30, 1995; 274(8):620–625.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weber MA. The Natural History of Medical Controversy Consultant 1997.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Furberg C, Psaty B, Meyer J. Nifedipine. Dose-related increase in mortality in patients with coronary heart disease. Circulation. 1995; 92:1326–1331.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Jick H. Calcium-channel blockers and risk of cancer. Lancet. June 7, 1997; 349(9066): 1699–1700.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pahor M, Guralnik J, Furbert Cea. Risk of gastrointestinal hemorrhage with calcium antagonists in hypertensive patients over 67. Lancet. 1996; 347:1061–1066.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Major outcomes in high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor or calcium channel blocker vs diuretic: the Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent Heart Attack Trial (ALLHAT). JAMA. Dec 18, 2002; 288(23):2981–2997.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Borhani NO, Mercuri M, Borhani PA, et al. Final outcome results of the Multicenter Isradipine Diuretic Atherosclerosis Study (MIDAS). A randomized controlled trial. JAMA. Sept 11, 1996; 276(10):785–791.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    de Semir V. What is newsworthy? Lancet. Apr 27, 1996; 347(9009):1163–1166.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Glasser SP, Clark PI, Spoto E. Heart rate response to “Fright Stress.” Heart Lung. 1978; 7:1006–1010.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chase M. How to put hyped study results under a microscope. Wall Street J. 1995; 16:B-1.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Deary IJ, Whiteman MC, Fowkes FG. Medical research and the popular media. Lancet. June 6, 1998; 351(9117):1726–1727.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Johnson T. Shattuck lecture–medicine and the media. N Engl J Med. July 9 1998; 339(2):87–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nelkin D. An uneasy relationship: the tensions between medicine and the media. Lancet. June 8 1996; 347(9015):1600–1603.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stephen P. Glasser
    • 1
  1. 1.Univesity of Alabama at Birmingham, Birmingham, AlabamaBirmingham

Personalised recommendations