Scientific journalism can be both informative and interesting -- qualities that are likely prioritized by editors and producers of media. However, scientific journalism occasionally falls short in terms of the writers' ability to present information in an accurate and balanced manner. For example, stories will sometimes avoid discussion of a study's limitations, or present correlational research findings as causal -- to name a few.
As a psychologist, one of the main problems I have with scientific journalism is the media's tendency to under-report on findings from psychological outcome studies. Indeed, whenever I read a newspaper or watch a news report on TV, I am more likely to be exposed to research on antidepressants or alternative medicine, in terms of their relationship to mental health.
Why is this important? Well, if you are someone wanting to know about current treatment options for depression, including any new outcome studies demonstrating positive effects, mainstream media outlets are a popular option for learning more on this and other health topics. The amount of exposure that a particular treatment receives can influence people's understanding of treatment in general. If people only ever read stories about pharmaceutical drugs' effects on a particular problem, then over time the general public comes to consider this treatment to be the gold standard.
So, if treatment A gets 85% of the media coverage, then treatments B and C are likely to be considered less important, regardless of their true efficacy. And this is the problem -- the general public should be given more clear and direct information about various treatments' effectiveness. Furthermore, if there is going to bias in coverage, then it should go in the favour of treatments with large effect sizes (the most effective treatments) for serious issues.
But this is not the manner in which scientific journalism operates. Treatments are more likely to be covered if a company issues a press release. This type of coverage was exemplified in a recent Montreal Gazette story on Omega-3 vitamins and their impact on depression.
I've read the actual research article on which this story was based. Basically, the researchers designed a nice study examining the effect of this Omega-3s on depression, using a double-blind randomized trial. The researchers failed to find a significant overall effect. However, they found a small effect for people who had depression, but no anxiety disorder. The effect size was .27 which is in the small-moderate range.
The Gazette has run similar stories over the past few months. They ran a large story on micronutrient therapy for mood disorders. They ran a study recently showing a link between vitamin-B deficiency and depression in older adults. There are also periodic stories on antidepressants, which tend to portray the treatment of depression as follows: antidepressants are the gold standard of treatment, and sometimes counseling can help.
The problem with all of this is that these stories misrepresent the state of knowledge on treatment of depression. For example, hundreds of studies on the treatment of depression with Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) have been published, and what you find is an average effect size of .82(1) versus placebo/ wait-list control. This is 3 times larger than Omega-3 treatment! Furthermore, CBT's effect size is statistically equivalent to antidepressants. You also find that CBT has a lower relapse rate than medication (29.5% vs. 60%), and is more cost-effective. Research has also found CBT to be equally effective as medication for moderate to severe cases of depression(1).
Does anyone ever see this in the news cycle?
Well, you might ask, have there been recent psychological findings worthy of printing a story about?
Let's see. How about a recent meta-analysis showing that mindfulness based therapy is an effective treatment for anxiety and depression(2). Or how about really interesting research showing that computer software programs designed to retrain people's attention significantly reduces their anxiety?(3) Or how about the ability of psychological treatment to simultaneously treat depression and reduce smoking?(4)
At the end of the day, psychologists have to work harder to promote these findings. But the media has to work harder to better represent health research....and not simply follow-up a press release from a company with financial ties to the findings.
Dr. Roger Covin
Montreal Psychologist
www.drcovin.ca
References
1 Butler, A.C., Chapman, J.E., Forman, E.M., & Beck, A.T. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 17-31.
2 Hofmann et al. (2010). The effect of mindfulness-based therapy on anxiety and depression: A meta-analytic review, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(2), 169-183. 3 Amir, N., Beard, C., Taylor, C., Klumpp, H., Elias, J., Burns, M., et al. (2009). Attention training in individuals with generalized social phobia: A randomized controlled trial. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 77(5), 961-973.4 MacPherson, L. et al. (2010). Randomized controlled trial of behavioral activation smoking cessation treatment for smokers with elevated depression symptoms. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 78(1), 55-61.
As a psychologist, one of the main problems I have with scientific journalism is the media's tendency to under-report on findings from psychological outcome studies. Indeed, whenever I read a newspaper or watch a news report on TV, I am more likely to be exposed to research on antidepressants or alternative medicine, in terms of their relationship to mental health.
Why is this important? Well, if you are someone wanting to know about current treatment options for depression, including any new outcome studies demonstrating positive effects, mainstream media outlets are a popular option for learning more on this and other health topics. The amount of exposure that a particular treatment receives can influence people's understanding of treatment in general. If people only ever read stories about pharmaceutical drugs' effects on a particular problem, then over time the general public comes to consider this treatment to be the gold standard.
So, if treatment A gets 85% of the media coverage, then treatments B and C are likely to be considered less important, regardless of their true efficacy. And this is the problem -- the general public should be given more clear and direct information about various treatments' effectiveness. Furthermore, if there is going to bias in coverage, then it should go in the favour of treatments with large effect sizes (the most effective treatments) for serious issues.
But this is not the manner in which scientific journalism operates. Treatments are more likely to be covered if a company issues a press release. This type of coverage was exemplified in a recent Montreal Gazette story on Omega-3 vitamins and their impact on depression.
I've read the actual research article on which this story was based. Basically, the researchers designed a nice study examining the effect of this Omega-3s on depression, using a double-blind randomized trial. The researchers failed to find a significant overall effect. However, they found a small effect for people who had depression, but no anxiety disorder. The effect size was .27 which is in the small-moderate range.
The Gazette has run similar stories over the past few months. They ran a large story on micronutrient therapy for mood disorders. They ran a study recently showing a link between vitamin-B deficiency and depression in older adults. There are also periodic stories on antidepressants, which tend to portray the treatment of depression as follows: antidepressants are the gold standard of treatment, and sometimes counseling can help.
The problem with all of this is that these stories misrepresent the state of knowledge on treatment of depression. For example, hundreds of studies on the treatment of depression with Cognitive-Behavioural Therapy (CBT) have been published, and what you find is an average effect size of .82(1) versus placebo/ wait-list control. This is 3 times larger than Omega-3 treatment! Furthermore, CBT's effect size is statistically equivalent to antidepressants. You also find that CBT has a lower relapse rate than medication (29.5% vs. 60%), and is more cost-effective. Research has also found CBT to be equally effective as medication for moderate to severe cases of depression(1).
Does anyone ever see this in the news cycle?
Well, you might ask, have there been recent psychological findings worthy of printing a story about?
Let's see. How about a recent meta-analysis showing that mindfulness based therapy is an effective treatment for anxiety and depression(2). Or how about really interesting research showing that computer software programs designed to retrain people's attention significantly reduces their anxiety?(3) Or how about the ability of psychological treatment to simultaneously treat depression and reduce smoking?(4)
At the end of the day, psychologists have to work harder to promote these findings. But the media has to work harder to better represent health research....and not simply follow-up a press release from a company with financial ties to the findings.
Dr. Roger Covin
Montreal Psychologist
www.drcovin.ca
References
1 Butler, A.C., Chapman, J.E., Forman, E.M., & Beck, A.T. (2006). The empirical status of cognitive-behavioral therapy: A review of meta-analyses. Clinical Psychology Review, 26, 17-31.
1 comment:
Today, because of new science and techniques, there are current workbooks are three to four times more effective than other early life skills workbooks. While most life skills providers are still rooted in the old methods of the 1970s and 80s, we have embraced the new psychological systems that have proven to change faulty thinking errors and overcome self -defeating behaviors.
Post a Comment