Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorNault, Daryl
dc.contributor.authorBeccia, Ariel
dc.contributor.authorIto, Haruka
dc.contributor.authorKashdan, Sarah
dc.contributor.authorSenders, Angela
dc.date2022-08-11T08:09:51.000
dc.date.accessioned2022-08-23T16:46:11Z
dc.date.available2022-08-23T16:46:11Z
dc.date.issued2018-10-01
dc.date.submitted2018-12-07
dc.identifier.citation<p>Interact J Med Res. 2018 Oct 1;7(2):e15. doi: 10.2196/ijmr.8981. <a href="https://doi.org/10.2196/ijmr.8981">Link to article on publisher's site</a></p>
dc.identifier.issn1929-073X (Linking)
dc.identifier.doi10.2196/ijmr.8981
dc.identifier.pmid30274960
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14038/40830
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND: Dietary supplements are the most used complementary and alternative health modality in the United States, and omega-3 supplements continue to be the most popularly used nonvitamin or nonmineral supplements by adults. Users of dietary supplements report that they obtain health guidance from internet media resources, but there is question as to whether or not these resources provide the necessary evidence to guide health decisions. Current evidence suggests that there is a mistranslation occurring somewhere between researchers and the media. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative cross-sectional analysis to identify areas of discordance created when science is translated from the laboratory to Web-based news media. METHODS: A Google news search provided our convenience sample of 40 omega-3 supplement-based media reports stratified by the years 2009 to 2012. Media reports (n=17) were compared with the corresponding scientific papers for content. Report and scientific paper content were extracted using commonly accepted reporting guideline domains, and domains were then compared for detecting underlying omissions or mistranslations in reporting. Mean scores for all of the scientific papers and media reports were assessed for each domain. RESULTS: Scientific papers (n=14) generally maintained a mean close to complete for each reporting domain. The only domain where there was not a significant difference between media and scientific reporting match was within the objectives domain (chi(2)1= 0.8, P=.36). Media reports (n=17) more frequently reported potential caveats and warnings for consumers with a mean domain for caveat reporting of 0.88, with possible scores falling between 0 and 1. CONCLUSIONS: There are inherent differences in the intended audience, structure, and goals in scientific and media communications. These differences should be explored further, and consumers should be made aware of them. Additional considerations for balanced reporting and reader accessibility are also necessary to take into account and are explored further in this analysis.
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.relation<p><a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&list_uids=30274960&dopt=Abstract">Link to Article in PubMed</a></p>
dc.rights©Daryl Nault, Ariel Beccia, Haruka Ito, Sarah Kashdan, Angela Senders. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 01.10.2018. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.subjectconsumer health information
dc.subjectdietary supplements
dc.subjectevidence-based practice
dc.subjecthealth communication
dc.subjecthealth literacy
dc.subjecthealth promotion
dc.subjectjournalism
dc.subjectomega-3 fatty acids
dc.subjectCommunication Technology and New Media
dc.subjectDietetics and Clinical Nutrition
dc.subjectHealth Communication
dc.subjectInformation Literacy
dc.subjectJournalism Studies
dc.subjectLipids
dc.subjectPublic Health Education and Promotion
dc.titleHealth Information Discrepancies Between Internet Media and Scientific Papers Reporting on Omega-3 Supplement Research: Comparative Analysis
dc.typeJournal Article
dc.source.journaltitleInteractive journal of medical research
dc.source.volume7
dc.source.issue2
dc.identifier.legacyfulltexthttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4648&amp;context=oapubs&amp;unstamped=1
dc.identifier.legacycoverpagehttps://escholarship.umassmed.edu/oapubs/3636
dc.identifier.contextkey13442252
refterms.dateFOA2022-08-23T16:46:11Z
html.description.abstract<p>BACKGROUND: Dietary supplements are the most used complementary and alternative health modality in the United States, and omega-3 supplements continue to be the most popularly used nonvitamin or nonmineral supplements by adults. Users of dietary supplements report that they obtain health guidance from internet media resources, but there is question as to whether or not these resources provide the necessary evidence to guide health decisions. Current evidence suggests that there is a mistranslation occurring somewhere between researchers and the media.</p> <p>OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative cross-sectional analysis to identify areas of discordance created when science is translated from the laboratory to Web-based news media.</p> <p>METHODS: A Google news search provided our convenience sample of 40 omega-3 supplement-based media reports stratified by the years 2009 to 2012. Media reports (n=17) were compared with the corresponding scientific papers for content. Report and scientific paper content were extracted using commonly accepted reporting guideline domains, and domains were then compared for detecting underlying omissions or mistranslations in reporting. Mean scores for all of the scientific papers and media reports were assessed for each domain.</p> <p>RESULTS: Scientific papers (n=14) generally maintained a mean close to complete for each reporting domain. The only domain where there was not a significant difference between media and scientific reporting match was within the objectives domain (chi(2)1= 0.8, P=.36). Media reports (n=17) more frequently reported potential caveats and warnings for consumers with a mean domain for caveat reporting of 0.88, with possible scores falling between 0 and 1.</p> <p>CONCLUSIONS: There are inherent differences in the intended audience, structure, and goals in scientific and media communications. These differences should be explored further, and consumers should be made aware of them. Additional considerations for balanced reporting and reader accessibility are also necessary to take into account and are explored further in this analysis.</p>
dc.identifier.submissionpathoapubs/3636
dc.contributor.departmentDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences
dc.source.pagese15


Files in this item

Thumbnail
Name:
6397b6ef_de42_4408_b897_a5d48b ...
Size:
784.6Kb
Format:
PDF

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

©Daryl Nault, Ariel Beccia, Haruka Ito, Sarah Kashdan, Angela Senders. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 01.10.2018. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as ©Daryl Nault, Ariel Beccia, Haruka Ito, Sarah Kashdan, Angela Senders. Originally published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research (http://www.i-jmr.org/), 01.10.2018. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in the Interactive Journal of Medical Research, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on http://www.i-jmr.org/, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.