Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Original Article
  • Published:

Clinical Research

Media reporting of ProtecT: a disconnect in information dissemination?

Subjects

Abstract

Background:

Given the central role of the media in disseminating information to the public, we analyzed news coverage of the recent publication from ProtecT to assess views on treatment, the level of detail presented and degree of bias.

Methods:

We applied a predefined search strategy to identify all news articles reporting on ProtecT within 30 days of its publication. Articles were independently assessed by two urologists and two lay persons using five-point Likert scales. Descriptive statistics and analysis of variance were used.

Results:

Of 33 unique articles identified, 20 (61%) conveyed negative views on definitive treatment for localized prostate cancer (PCa), while 29 (88%) expressed favorable views of active surveillance/monitoring (AM). Nevertheless, fewer than half of the articles described what AM entails (n=15; 46%) or the rate of treatment in the AM arm (n=12; 36%). Moreover, while 32 (97%) articles highlighted the absence of a difference in cancer-specific mortality at 10 years, only 17 (52%) mentioned the need for longer follow-up. A total of 17 (52%) articles had a notable degree of perceived bias (4/5 on Likert scale), with shorter articles (P=0.02), articles covering few content areas (P=0.03) and articles that did not detail what AM entails (P=0.003) containing significantly increased bias.

Conclusions:

The majority of news articles regarding ProtecT presented an adverse view of definitive treatment for localized PCa relative to AM, but failed to highlight key nuances of the trial. Healthcare professionals and the lay public should be cautious in acquiring medical news through the general media. Additionally, the urologic community must continue to improve the quality of disseminated information, for example, through proactively engaging with the media, through social media and/or through participation in continuing education lecture series, so as to guide the knowledge translation process, especially upon publication of such potentially influential studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Rent or buy this article

Prices vary by article type

from$1.95

to$39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bill-Axelson A, Holmberg L, Garmo H, Rider JR, Taari K, Busch C et al. Radical prostatectomy or watchful waiting in early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2014; 370: 932–942.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. Wilt TJ, Brawer MK, Jones KM, Barry MJ, Aronson WJ, Fox S et al. Radical prostatectomy versus observation for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 203–213.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hamdy FC, Donovan JL, Lane JA, Mason M, Metcalfe C, Holding P et al. 10-Year outcomes after monitoring, surgery, or radiotherapy for localized prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1415–1424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Shuchman M, Wilkes MS . Medical scientists and health news reporting: a case of miscommunication. Ann Intern Med 1997; 126: 976–982.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. James C, James N, Davies D, Harvey P, Tweddle S . Preferences for different sources of information about cancer. Patient Educ Couns 1999; 37: 273–282.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Phillips DP, Kanter EJ, Bednarczyk B, Tastad PL . Importance of the lay press in the transmission of medical knowledge to the scientific community. N Engl J Med 1991; 325: 1180–1183.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Grilli R, Ramsay C, Minozzi S . Mass media interventions: effects on health services utilisation. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002; 1: CD000389.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Yanovitzky I . Effect of news coverage on the prevalence of drunk-driving behavior: evidence from a longitudinal study. J Stud Alcohol 2002; 63: 342–351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Yanovitzky I, Blitz CL . Effect of media coverage and physician advice on utilization of breast cancer screening by women 40 years and older. J Health Commun 2000; 5: 117–134.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Stryker JE . Reporting medical information: effects of press releases and newsworthiness on medical journal articles' visibility in the news media. Prev Med 2002; 35: 519–530.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, Watkins J et al. Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med 2000; 342: 1645–1650.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Schwitzer G . How do US journalists cover treatments, tests, products, and procedures? An evaluation of 500 stories. PLoS Med 2008; 5: e95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Cohen D . PSA testing: press coverage in UK and US is an ocean apart. BMJ 2009; 338: b1287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lawrentschuk N, Daljeet N, Trottier G, Crawley P, Fleshner NE . An analysis of world media reporting of two recent large randomized prospective trials investigating screening for prostate cancer. BJU Int 2011; 108 (8 Pt 2): E190–E195.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. MacKenzie R, Chapman S, Barratt A, Holding S . ‘The news is [not] all good’: misrepresentations and inaccuracies in Australian news media reports on prostate cancer screening. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 507–510.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. MacKenzie R, Chapman S, Holding S, McGeechan K . 'A matter of faith, not science': analysis of media coverage of prostate cancer screening in Australian news media 2003-2006. J R Soc Med 2007; 100: 513–521.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  17. Steginga SK, Gardiner RF . The media and prostate cancer screening. Med J Aust 2007; 187: 501–502.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Statista: the statistics portal. Worldwide market share of leading search engines. Available at http://www.statistacom/statistics/216573/worldwide-market-share-of-search-engines.

  19. Royal CKD . What's on wikipedia, and what's not…?: assessing completeness of information. Soc Sci Comput Rev 2009; 27: 138–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Rothman KJ . No adjustments are needed for multiple comparisons. Epidemiology 1990; 1: 43–46.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Mitchell A, Holcomb J. State of the News Media 2016. 2016. Retrieved from: http://www.journalism.org/2016/06/15/state-of-the-news-media-2016/.

  22. Bartlett C, Sterne J, Egger M . What is newsworthy? Longitudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ 2002; 325: 81–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. van Trigt AM, de Jong-van den Berg LT, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Willems J, Tromp TF . Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on medicines. Soc Sci Med 1994; 38: 637–643.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Andrews A, Stukel TA . Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2012; 344: d8164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM . Press releases: translating research into news. JAMA 2002; 287: 2856–2858.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. D'Amico AV . Treatment or monitoring for early prostate cancer. N Engl J Med 2016; 375: 1482–1483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Author Center Embargo Policy. 2017. Retrieved from: http://www.nejm.org/page/author-center/embargo.

  28. Roupret M, Misrai V . Exponential use of social media in medicine: example of the interest of twitter((c)) in urology. Prog Urol 2015; 25: 11–17.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Loeb S, Bayne CE, Frey C, Davies BJ, Averch TD, Woo HH et al. Use of social media in urology: data from the American Urological Association (AUA). BJU Int 2014; 113: 993–998.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Loeb S, Roupret M, Van Oort I, N'Dow J, Van Gurp M, Bloemberg J et al. Novel use of twitter to disseminate and evaluate adherence with clinical guidelines by the European Association of Urology. BJU Int 2017 (e-pub ahead of print).

  31. Ficko Z, Koo K, Hyams ES . High tech or high risk? An analysis of media reports about robotic surgery. J Robot Surg 2016 (e-pub ahead of print).

  32. Koo K, Shee K, Yap RL. News media analysis of the United States Preventive Services Task Force and American Urological Association prostate cancer screening guidelines. Urol Pract 2016 (e-pub ahead of print; doi.org/10.1016/j.urpr.2016.12.001).

  33. Koo K, Gormley EA . Transvaginal mesh in the media following the 2011 US Food And Drug Administration public health notification update. Neurourol Urodyn 2015; 36: 329–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S A Boorjian.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Supplementary Information accompanies the paper on the Prostate Cancer and Prostatic Diseases website

Supplementary information

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Westerman, M., Bhindi, B., Choo, R. et al. Media reporting of ProtecT: a disconnect in information dissemination?. Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis 20, 401–406 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.27

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/pcan.2017.27

This article is cited by

Search

Quick links