corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 14442

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Read all about it: media reports of drug studies
The Lancet 2008 Oct 11; 372:(9646):1274
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673608615299/fulltext

Keywords:
Disclosure* Drug Evaluation*/economics Drug Industry Humans Journalism, Medical/standards* Research Support as Topic* United States


Full text:

Newspapers are a regular source of drug information for the public. But, according to an analysis in last week’s Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), they often do not present drug research in a commercially unbiased way. The study found that 130 of 306 (42%) US newspaper articles on drug trials, did not mention that the research had drug-company funding. And the reports often used brand names instead of generic names for drugs.

Convincing journalists to use the generic names will be a tough sell. Brand names are appealing to mainstream media for several reasons. They are, as they are designed to be, more reader-friendly. They are easier to pronounce and lay readers are more familiar with them. But their use in the media gives undue promotion to one brand, and, as a result, may cause increased public demand for a more expensive drug. Some journalists have argued that drug companies and drug regulators could help by making generic names less cumbersome. But this request is difficult since generic names have a scientific basis.

Encouraging journalists to mention drug-company funding in their news stories should be an easier task. The authors of the JAMA paper suggest that medical journals have an important part to play in making this information easily accessible to the media. We agree. The Lancet now puts sources of funding in a more prominent place in research articles-in the summary as well as in the acknowledgments-as recommended by CONSORT guidelines. And articles are always issued with our press release.

Journalists might say that they do not have enough space to put sources of funding in their news stories. They might also say that funding is not always relevant. True. Company funding is particularly relevant when reporting positive studies. But, when relevant, journalists and editors should include this information no matter how tight for space they may be.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend