Online health information – what the newspapers tell their readers: a systematic content analysis

BMC Public Health

James C McElnay²  Kieran J McGlade¹  Brian A McCaw² 

[1]School of Medicine, Dentistry and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, Ireland

[2]School of Pharmacy, Queen’s University Belfast, 97 Lisburn Road, Belfast BT9 7BL, Ireland

关键词: Online health information;    Health information;    Internet;    Newspaper article;    Newspapers;   

Others  :  1122846
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2458-14-1316

 received in 2014-06-18, accepted in 2014-12-15,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

This study investigated the nature of newspaper reporting about online health information in the UK and US. Internet users frequently search for health information online, although the accuracy of the information retrieved varies greatly and can be misleading. Newspapers have the potential to influence public health behaviours, but information has been lacking in relation to how newspapers portray online health information to their readers.

Methods

The newspaper database Nexis^®UK was searched for articles published from 2003 – 2012 relating to online health information. Systematic content analysis of articles published in the highest circulation newspapers in the UK and US was performed. A second researcher coded a 10% sample to establish inter-rater reliability of coding.

Results

In total, 161 newspaper articles were included in the analysis. Publication was most frequent in 2003, 2008 and 2009, which coincided with global threats to public health. UK broadsheet newspapers were significantly more likely to cover online health information than UK tabloid newspapers (p = 0.04) and only one article was identified in US tabloid newspapers. Articles most frequently appeared in health sections. Among the 79 articles that linked online health information to specific diseases or health topics, diabetes was the most frequently mentioned disease, cancer the commonest group of diseases and sexual health the most frequent health topic. Articles portrayed benefits of obtaining online health information more frequently than risks. Quotations from health professionals portrayed mixed opinions regarding public access to online health information. 108 (67.1%) articles directed readers to specific health-related web sites. 135 (83.9%) articles were rated as having balanced judgement and 76 (47.2%) were judged as having excellent quality reporting. No difference was found in the quality of reporting between UK and US articles.

Conclusions

Newspaper coverage of online health information was low during the 10-year period 2003 to 2012. Journalists tended to emphasise the benefits and understate the risks of online health information and the quality of reporting varied considerably. Newspapers directed readers to sources of online health information during global epidemics although, as most articles appeared in the health sections of broadsheet newspapers, coverage was limited to a relatively small readership.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 McCaw et al.; licensee BioMed Central.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Dutton WH, Blank G: Next Generation Users: The Internet in Britain 2011. Oxford: Oxford Internet Institute; 2011.
• [2]Fox S, Duggan M: Health Online 2013. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2013.
• [3]Ayers SL, Kronenfeld JJ: Chronic illness and health-seeking information on the Internet. Health 2007, 11:327-347.
• [4]Fox S, Purcell K: Chronic Disease and the Internet. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project; 2010.
• [5]Rice RE: Influences, usage, and outcomes of Internet health information searching: Multivariate results from the Pew surveys. Int J Med Inform 2006, 75:8-28.
• [6]Tustin N: The role of patient satisfaction in online health information seeking. J Health Commun 2010, 15:3-17.
• [7]Weaver JB 3rd, Mays D, Weaver SS, Hopkins GL, Eroglu D, Bernhardt JM: Health information-seeking behaviors, health indicators, and health risks. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:1520-1525.
• [8]Van Deursen AJ, Van Dijk JA: Internet skills performance tests: are people ready for eHealth? J Med Internet Res 2011, 13:e35.
• [9]Benigeri M, Pluye P: Shortcomings of health information on the Internet. Health Promot Int 2003, 18:381-386.
• [10]Agricola E, Gesualdo F, Pandolfi E, Gonfiantini M, Carloni E, Mastroiacovo P, Tozzi A: Does googling for preconception care result in information consistent with international guidelines: a comparison of information found by Italian women of childbearing age and health professionals. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2013, 13:14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [11]Singh AG, Singh S, Singh PP: YouTube for information on rheumatoid arthritis - a wakeup call? J Rheumatol 2012, 39:899-903.
• [12]Giles D: The Internet, information seeking and identity. Psychol 2007, 20:432-434.
• [13]Brinn MP, Carson KV, Esterman AJ, Chang AB, Smith BJ: Mass media interventions for preventing smoking in young people. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2010, 11:CD001006. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001006.pub2
• [14]National Readership Survey: Top Line Readership January ’12 – December ’12. [http://www.nrs.co.uk/ webcite]
• [15]Schwitzer G: How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med 2008, 5:e95.
• [16]Bubela T, Caulfield T: Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. Can Med Assoc J 2004, 170:1399-1407.
• [17]Prosser H, Clayson K: A content analysis of prescription drug information in the UK print news media. Int J Pharm Pract 2008, 16:223-230.
• [18]Turow J, Coluccio K, Hersh A, Humphreys L, Jacobsohn L, Sawicki N: Discussions of Health Web Sites in Medical and Popular Media. [http://works.bepress.com/joseph_turow/1 webcite]
• [19]Bubela T, Boon H, Caulfield T: Herbal remedy clinical trials in the media: A comparison with the coverage of conventional pharmaceuticals. BMC Med 2008, 6:1-14. BioMed Central Full Text
• [20]Konfortion J, Jack RH, Davies EA: Coverage of common cancers in UK national newspapers in relation to cancer awareness campaigns, 2011. Lancet 2012, 380(Supplement 3):S54.
• [21]Goodfellow N, Almomani B, Hawwa A, McElnay J: What the newspapers say about medication adherence: a content analysis. BMC Public Health 2013, 13:909. BioMed Central Full Text
• [22]Audit Bureau of Circulations [http://www.abc.org.uk/ webcite]
• [23]Alliance for Audited Media [http://www.auditedmedia.com/ webcite]
• [24]Landis JR, Koch GG: The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics 1977, 33:159-174.
• [25]Hilton S, Hunt K: UK newspapers’ representations of the 2009-10 outbreak of swine flu: one health scare not over-hyped by the media? J Epidemiol Community Health 2011, 65:941-946.
• [26]Bartlett C, Sterne J, Egger M: What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. Br Med J 2002, 325:81-84.
• [27]Gupta A, Sinha AK: Health coverage in mass media: a content analysis. J Commun 2010, 1:19-25.
• [28]Adelman RC, Verbrugge LM: Death makes news: the social impact of disease on newspaper coverage. J Health Soc Behav 2000, 41:347-367.
• [29]Office for National Statistics: Leading Causes of Death in England and Wales. London: ONS; 2009.
• [30]Wilson A, Bonevski B, Jones A, Henry D: Media reporting of health interventions: signs of improvement, but major problems persist. PLoS One 2009, 4:e4831.
• [31]Maier S: All the news fit to post? Comparing news content on the web to newspapers, television, and radio. J Mass Commun Q 2010, 87:548-562.