It’s enough to make your head spin
“Low-Fat Diet Does Not Cut Health Risks, Study Finds” (New York Times, Feb. 8).
“Study Reverses Long-Held Ideas on Calcium’s Use” (Los Angeles Daily News, Feb. 16).
“Study Revises View of Hormones, Heart Woes” (Chicago Sun-Times, Feb. 20).
Just when you think you know what’s good for your health, a new medical study changes everything. As these headlines attest, that’s been happening a lot lately.
In the last month, the advantages of a low-fat diet have come under fire, the benefits of calcium supplements have been called into question and the dangers of hormone replacement therapy are being reexamined.
These seemingly contradictory research findings have left people confused and unsure of what action they should take in response to the new information. An acquaintance put it this way at a recent dinner party: “Suddenly things I had faith in have been shown to be false. It leaves me a little disheartened -- perplexed, for certain.”
I, along with many other physicians, am also troubled by these conflicting reports, or at least by the way they are being interpreted and acted upon by their patients. We are concerned that the media coverage of medical studies such as these does not accurately represent the researchers’ findings and may lead people to take inappropriate -- even potentially dangerous -- actions.
It seems our concerns may be well-founded. In a study published last year, researchers at the University of Tennessee found widespread problems in the quality of health-related reports appearing in several top selling newspapers and news magazines, as well as on the most popular news Internet sites. Articles were rated as excellent if they were both complete and accurate, fair if they were either incomplete or inaccurate and poor if they suffered in both categories.
Of the 60 articles studied, none received an excellent rating.
Part of the problem is the spin the media puts on medical stories and headlines in an attempt to draw in their audience. I would go so far as to suggest that the media sometimes deliberately distorts them to increase sales of magazines and newspapers or raise television and radio ratings. Unfortunately, this approach can overstate the significance of a research study’s findings and create misleading messages.
A recent article in the New York Times serves as a good example. The article discussed results of the Women’s Health Initiative investigation into the effects of dietary fat. “The largest study ever to ask whether a low-fat diet reduces the risk of getting cancer or heart disease has found that the diet has no effect,” read the lead. The article went on to suggest that the study was “the final word.”
In fact, the findings of the study were far less conclusive than the article implied. The study looked only at women older than 50 and followed them for only eight years. The fact that eight years of low-fat eating did not appear to benefit older women does not mean that it isn’t potentially helpful to young women or men (or, for that matter, older women who consume a low-fat diet for a longer period of time). Unfortunately, the article glossed over these possibilities.
In my opinion, the only conclusion that could be drawn from this study is that women who eat poorly for the first 50 years of their life cannot make up for it with just a few years of modest dietary improvements.
Getting the story right is important because American men and women respond to the media’s messages. For example, the publication of a study in 2002 that suggested hormone replacement therapy increases the risk of heart disease led to a substantial decline in hormone use in the months that followed. A survey of women conducted by researchers at the University of North Carolina School of Pharmacy found media coverage of the study had significant influence on women’s decisions to continue using hormones or not.
The media cannot be blamed entirely for the confusion. Medical studies are generally very complicated, and scientific data are difficult to interpret. It is my belief that the medical community has a responsibility to help reporters decipher and interpret the information -- and ensure that stories get reported accurately.
Until that happens, there are several things you can do to help make sense of medical news stories. First, go beyond the headlines. Sometimes the “fine print” is there -- you just need to read the entire article or listen to the entire broadcast to find it. Two, pay close attention to where you are getting your information (and, for that matter, who they are going to for theirs). Recognize that even the most reputable sources may not always be reliable.
Most important: Don’t rely on the media as your sole source of information. Turn to medical experts for help. That doesn’t mean picking up the phone and calling your physician every time a confusing new research finding is published. Government agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of Health, and organizations such as the American Heart Assn. and the American Cancer Society, frequently respond to major news stories and synthesize their own opinions about them.
Finally, keep in mind that one study is generally not enough to warrant drastic action. To be convincing, the results must be reproducible. Unfortunately, you might not hear much about the studies that simply reproduce and reinforce established beliefs. They often aren’t considered newsworthy enough to make headlines.
*
Dr. Valerie Ulene is a board-certified specialist in preventive medicine practicing in Los Angeles. She can be reached at themd@att.net.
