Medicine in the Media:
The Challenge of Reporting on Medical Research

2009 Agenda   (pdf version for printing)  Updated 6/19/2009

6:00 p.m.

Opening Remarks and Introductions
Barry Kramer

7:00 p.m.

Adventures in Disclosure: Conflicts of Interest in CT Screening for Lung Cancer
In the fall of 2007 and spring of 2008, two journalists working for different outlets collaborated to shed light on important conflict-of-interest concerns in a lung cancer screening study. In this session, the reporters will discuss what they found, how they worked together, and the results of their work. Paul Goldberg & Gardiner Harris

7:30 a.m.

Breakfast

8:00 – 9:00 a.m.

Orientation and a big picture look at medicine in the media
This session will review the goals of the course, outline some common problems researchers see when they read stories about health in the media, and discuss ways to do better. Steven Woloshin

9:00 – 10:00 a.m.

How big? Numbers in research
A major challenge for health journalists is understanding how big the main effect is in a given study. This session describes how health outcomes are counted and compared. The session will also provide a quick review of some basic terms used in health research and statistics. Gil Welch

10:00 – 10:15 a.m.

Break

10:15 a.m. –12:30 p.m.

How sure? Basic research designs
No matter how big the numbers are, you still need to decide whether to believe them or not. Perhaps the most basic question to ask is whether or not the numbers came from a true experiment. This session focuses on the basic distinction between randomized trials and observational studies. Gil Welch

12:30 – 1:30 p.m.

Lunch

1:30 – 3:00 p.m.

Using what you learned: Problems with numbers and some solutions
Understanding the numbers is one thing, but communicating them to your readers is another. This example-based, interactive session will highlight how numbers can be misleading (or just confusing) and offer practical guidance on how to report them clearly. Steven Woloshin

3:00 – 4:30 p.m.

Break / Tutorial
Take a break from the numbers and enjoy the grounds and amenities of the Bolger Center, or meet with members of the faculty to clarify or discuss material covered in the course so far.

4:30 – 5:30 p.m.

Grading Health News Coverage
The creator of HealthNewsReview.org will discuss findings from the website’s review of 800 health stories in its first three years. Gary Schwitzer

5:30 – 10:00 p.m.

Dinner and Bus Trip to Washington, DC
Details TBA

7:30 a.m.

Breakfast

8:00 – 9:00 a.m.

How sure? The limited role of statistics
P values and 95% confidence intervals can be intimidating, but these are the basic measures that researchers use to express the role of chance and the precision of their findings. Being comfortable with these statistics can help journalists judge for themselves the value of study findings. In this session, these concepts will be explained clearly and concisely. Gil Welch

9:00 – 10:15 a.m.

Using what you learned: Highlighting cautions about observational studies
Because some exposures are harmful, much research cannot involve randomized trials and must rely on observational studies. A major problem with these studies is that they may be difficult or downright impossible to interpret correctly. This session will address the problem of confounding and how researchers typically deal with it. Lisa Schwartz

10:15 – 10:30 a.m.

Break

10:30 – 11:45 a.m.

Using what you learned: More cautions (even for randomized trials)
Even with the best study designs, you need to understand basic study facts: what was measured, who participated in the study, and for how long. This session deals with the problems that arise in extrapolating from intermediate to clinical outcomes, from high- to lower-risk patients, and from short- to long-term results. Lisa Schwartz & Steven Woloshin

11:45 a.m.– 1:00 p.m.

Lunch

1:00 – 3:00 p.m.

The Logic of Cancer Screening
This session provides tools for journalists to critically assess unqualified endorsements of cancer screening tests and to distinguish between strength of opinion and strength of evidence. Barry Kramer

3:00 – 3:15 p.m.

Break

3:15 – 4:15 p.m.

Disease Mongering
Healthcare providers and the public are under increasing pressure to accept expanded definitions of what constitutes disease. When this pressure does not serve patients’ interests, it has been labeled disease mongering. The primary interest served is the financial well-being of pharmaceutical and device manufacturers who stand to gain from expanded markets. In this session, we review the case of “restless legs syndrome” to explore how the media can unwittingly facilitate this process. Steven Woloshin & Lisa Schwartz

4:15 – 6:00 p.m.

Break / Tutorial
Take a break from the numbers and enjoy the grounds and amenities of the Bolger Center, or meet with members of the faculty to clarify or discuss material covered in the course so far.

6:00 p.m.

Dinner

7:00 – 9:00 p.m.

Has Epidemiology Lost its Way?
Dr. McLaughlin will discuss an ongoing debate in the research community regarding false-positive study findings in nonexperimental epidemiological research, which generate concern over possible causes of cancer but which are not borne out by subsequent research. Joseph K. McLaughlin

7:30 – 8:00 a.m.

Breakfast

8:00 – 8:45 a.m.

Too big?
One statistic often presented in research papers and news releases but quite prone to misinterpretation is the odds ratio. This session will provide guidance on understanding this tricky concept, and deciphering it for your audience. Steven Woloshin

8:45 – 10:00 a.m.

Garbage! When the news may not be fit to print
The cautions about some study designs are formidable—so much so that journalists might reconsider covering them at all. This session will highlight stories that might have been best left on the cutting room floor—for example, preliminary results (e.g., scientific meetings, animal studies), uncontrolled studies, and cost-effectiveness models. Steven Woloshin & Lisa Schwartz

10:45 – 11:00 a.m.

Break

11:00 a.m – 12:00 p.m.

Guidance on Guidelines: Using clinical recommendations in reporting
Multiple organizations (professional medical societies, advocacy groups, government, and others) produce recommendations for clinical practice. So whom do you trust, and why? Using a case study to guide the discussion, this talk will provide simple tools to help evaluate the quality of a given guideline. Jennifer Miller Croswell

12:45 – 1:45 p.m.

Health Journalism in the 21st Century: Challenges and Opportunities
As traditional media wither catastrophically, new technologies and a slightly redefined mission can give journalists powerful new means of informing and enabling the public, especially when doing evidence-based journalism. Boyce Rensberger

1:45 – 2:30 p.m.

Using what you learned: You make the call!
Wrap up the course with some fast-paced practice in detecting statements that are exaggerated, overstated, or misleading. Steven Woloshin, Lisa Schwartz, & Gil Welch

Farewell!