Descriptions of Scientific Evidence and Uncertainty of Unproven COVID-19 Therapies in US News: Content Analysis Study

Overview

Journal JMIR Infodemiology

Publisher JMIR Publications

Specialties Medical Informatics
Public Health

Date 2024 Aug 29

PMID 39207825

Authors

Sara Watson

Tyler J Benning

Alessandro R Marcon

Xuan Zhu

Timothy Caulfield

Richard R Sharp

Zubin Master

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty.

Objective: This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines.

Methods: We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority.

Results: The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. "Government" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while "expert" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a "prominent person," of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001).

Conclusions: These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.

References

La Bella E, Allen C, Lirussi F . Communication vs evidence: What hinders the outreach of science during an infodemic? A narrative review. Integr Med Res. 2021; 10(4):100731. PMC: 8185242. DOI: 10.1016/j.imr.2021.100731. View

Saitz R, Schwitzer G . Communicating Science in the Time of a Pandemic. JAMA. 2020; 324(5):443-444. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2020.12535. View

Dixon G, Clarke C . The effect of falsely balanced reporting of the autism-vaccine controversy on vaccine safety perceptions and behavioral intentions. Health Educ Res. 2012; 28(2):352-9. DOI: 10.1093/her/cys110. View

Suarez-Lledo V, Alvarez-Galvez J . Prevalence of Health Misinformation on Social Media: Systematic Review. J Med Internet Res. 2021; 23(1):e17187. PMC: 7857950. DOI: 10.2196/17187. View

Ratcliff C, Wicke R . How the public evaluates media representations of uncertain science: An integrated explanatory framework. Public Underst Sci. 2022; 32(4):410-427. DOI: 10.1177/09636625221122960. View

ASCH S . Forming impressions of personality. J Abnorm Psychol. 2010; 41:258-90. DOI: 10.1037/h0055756. View

Barnett M, Gaye M, Jena A, Mehrotra A . Association of County-Level Prescriptions for Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin With County-Level Political Voting Patterns in the 2020 US Presidential Election. JAMA Intern Med. 2022; 182(4):452-454. PMC: 8980920. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2022.0200. View

Post S, Maier M . Stakeholders' rationales for representing uncertainties of biotechnological research. Public Underst Sci. 2016; 25(8):944-960. DOI: 10.1177/0963662516645039. View

Kamenova K, Caulfield T . Stem cell hype: media portrayal of therapy translation. Sci Transl Med. 2015; 7(278):278ps4. DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.3010496. View

10.

Brechman J, Lee C, Cappella J . Lost in Translation? A Comparison of Cancer-Genetics Reporting in the Press Release and its Subsequent Coverage in Lay Press. Sci Commun. 2015; 30(4):453-474. PMC: 4283841. DOI: 10.1177/1075547009332649. View

11.

Bubela T, Caulfield T . Do the print media "hype" genetic research? A comparison of newspaper stories and peer-reviewed research papers. CMAJ. 2004; 170(9):1399-407. PMC: 400292. DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.1030762. View

12.

Kuriya B, Schneid E, Bell C . Quality of pharmaceutical industry press releases based on original research. PLoS One. 2008; 3(7):e2828. PMC: 2518517. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002828. View

13.

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(9):507-10. DOI: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2007.tb01391.x. View

14.

Ho A, Huang V . Unmasking the Ethics of Public Health Messaging in a Pandemic. J Bioeth Inq. 2021; 18(4):549-559. PMC: 8461593. DOI: 10.1007/s11673-021-10126-y. View

15.

Loomba S, de Figueiredo A, Piatek S, de Graaf K, Larson H . Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nat Hum Behav. 2021; 5(3):337-348. DOI: 10.1038/s41562-021-01056-1. View

16.

Porter E, Wood T . The global effectiveness of fact-checking: Evidence from simultaneous experiments in Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, and the United Kingdom. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2021; 118(37). PMC: 8449384. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2104235118. View

17.

Moynihan R, Bero L, Ross-Degnan D, Henry D, Lee K, Watkins J . Coverage by the news media of the benefits and risks of medications. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342(22):1645-50. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM200006013422206. View

18.

Chan M, Jones C, Hall Jamieson K, Albarracin D . Debunking: A Meta-Analysis of the Psychological Efficacy of Messages Countering Misinformation. Psychol Sci. 2017; 28(11):1531-1546. PMC: 5673564. DOI: 10.1177/0956797617714579. View

19.

Jodi Van Scoy L, Miller E, Snyder B, Wasserman E, Chinchilli V, Zgierska A . Knowledge, Perceptions, and Preferred Information Sources Related to COVID-19 Among Central Pennsylvania Adults Early in the Pandemic: A Mixed Methods Cross-Sectional Survey. Ann Fam Med. 2021; 19(4):293-301. PMC: 8282301. DOI: 10.1370/afm.2674. View

20.

Ali S, Foreman J, Tozan Y, Capasso A, Jones A, DiClemente R . Trends and Predictors of COVID-19 Information Sources and Their Relationship With Knowledge and Beliefs Related to the Pandemic: Nationwide Cross-Sectional Study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020; 6(4):e21071. PMC: 7546863. DOI: 10.2196/21071. View