Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
Bad news for research
- Lesley J Fallowfield (15 July 2002)
-
Keep the Faith, Fight the Good Fight etc. etc...
- Tony Floyd (16 July 2002)
-
What is newsworthy and the HRT controversy.
- Michael Baum (18 July 2002)
-
Presentation, topicality and simplicity assist becoming newsworthy.
- Dave M Hambidge, Hazel Hambidge (31 July 2002)
|
|
|||
|
Lesley J Fallowfield, Director Cancer Research UK Psychosocial Oncology Group, Sussex University of Sussex
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, Your recent article highlighting the apparent unwillingness of newspaper reporters or their editors to headline good news stories made unsurprising but disappointing reading. It mirrored my own impressions and experiences of television and radio reporting about doctors communication skills. I have lost count of the mumber of times my group is contacted by reporters wanting examples of poor rather than good doctor/patient communication. The very worst example of this concerned a press release put out in February about a randomised controlled trial we had published in the Lancet(Fallowfield et al 359;650-656).The paper demonstrated the efficacy of a communication skills course for oncologists in 34 cancer centres throughout the UK involving over 2,400 patients. I was invited to appear on BBC Breakfast television to discuss, so I thought, the very exciting findings of benefit and intention of the Dept. of Health to implement the findings as part of the NHS Cancer Plan. Instead the interview was completely hi-jacked by a lengthy report about a patient with a brain tumour who had received bad news insensitively. I was asked to comment on his sorry experiences and given no opportunity to talk about the study and its very positive findings. Throughout the day, of the 6 interviews with radio stations only one, BBC Southern Counties and an evening television news report on BBC South East (both local programmes) provided any opportunity to make positive comments about doctors and their skills, let alone to report the findings of the study. It has jaundiced my view of anything reported in the lay media but how can we refuse to give press briefings or talk to journalists? Yours sincerely, Lesley Fallowfield |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tony Floyd, Medical Student Newcastle University Australia
Send response to journal:
|
In response to Bartlett, Sterne and Egger's article highlighting the difficulty in obtaining media coverage for good news within medical research and Fallowfield's response showing frustration with just such difficulties I offer the following: As a (perhaps idealistic) Medical Student I would suggest that the battle to get the truth heard may be difficult but we should not shy from the task. Anti-vaccination fanatics for example go almost unopposed on crack-pot web sites and at meetings because real researchers figure that since anti-immunisation theories are so clearly not supported by evidence, what is the point of arguing with them? The point of course is to not have children dying from preventable diseases. As Edmund Burke once said: "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing." So please don't give up! Tony Floyd |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Michael Baum, Emeritus Professor of Surgery and visiting Prpf. of medical humanities University College London 2,Cotman Close, London NW11 6PT
Send response to journal:
|
What is newsworthy? Dear Sir, I would like to comment on the article by Bartlett and his colleagues, “What is Newsworthy?” ( BMJ July 13th pp 81-84) linking the topic to your news item in the same issue entitled “Hormone trial for disease prevention stopped early” (July 13th page 61). I was on a lecture tour in North America when the story about the Women’s Health Initiative broke (JAMA 2002;288:321-33) and was in a unique position to compare the coverage in the newspapers in the USA, Canada and the UK (the last courtesy of the BA executive lounge in Vancouver where the papers were two days late and the plane ninety minutes delayed). Furthermore I had the advantage of having actually read the paper in preparation for an interview with a journalist in Toronto. Without exception all the press, whether broadsheet or tabloid, lead with the banner headlines that HRT causes a 26% increase in the incidence of breast cancer and that this was the reason for aborting the trial. Very few reports translated this into the absolute value of 8 extra cases for 10,000 women years exposure and none mentioned the fact that this was not a new observation but merely reinforced the findings from previous studies [1]. Furthermore none of the reports quoted the conclusion in the abstract that makes no mention of the breast cancer risk: “ ...All-cause mortality was not affected during the trial....this regimen should not be initiated or continued for primary prevention of CHD.” In other words “ Small earthquake in USA- No one dies”! As predicted at the first clinic on my return three patients had booked to ask me about this and where rapidly reassured when I explained that my earlier estimate of risk had to be raised by an extra two cases per 10,000 women years and reminded that increased incidence does not imply increased mortality [2]. I hate to think how many lives will be ruined by acute menopausal symptoms or lives lost through fractured necks of femur as a result of the media feeding frenzy. Yours Sincerely, Michael Baum [1] Colditz GA,Hankinson SE, Hunter DJ et al The use of estrogens and progestins and the risk of breast cancer in postmenopausal women. N Engl J Med. 1995;332: 1589-1593. [2] Collaborative group on Hormonal factors in Breast Cancer.Breast Cancer and hormone replacement therapy: collaborative reanalysis of data from 51 epidemiological studies in 52,705 women with breast cancer and 108,411 without breast cancer. Lancet 1997; 350:1047-1059 |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Dave M Hambidge, Independent Consultant Psychiatrist 9 Weavervale Park, Warrington Road, Bartington Northwich Cheshire CW8 4QU, Hazel Hambidge
Send response to journal:
|
Sir, May I humbly report that British and foreign meidia obtain their medical research information from some quite unusual sources. I had a poster presentation on a test (C3Q) for early detection of Alzheimer's disease displayed at the Royal College of Psyhciatrist Conference in Edinburgh in July 2000. The content was highlighted in the Englemed Health News service for that day. The Times and Scotsman newspapers accessed the Englemed web site and reported my research in their editions the following day. Meanwhile, the BBC picked up the item and listed it on their news health web site. From there my then hospital's local BBC radio station, and an Australian radio station, contacted me and I did two live on air interviews, the antipodean in the middle of their night! Why all the interest? The subject was topical, simple to understand, and my wife's vivid art work on the poster caught the original Englemed journalist's eye. Presentation is important. (Copy of the C3Q test available on request) |
|||