Objective: to compare a popular media health report to the peer-reviewed publication the report is based on. This project is easier to do if it is a treatment study.
General guidelines: Each student will choose a health story that was published in 2015 or later. The story can be in any popular media newspaper, magazine, television, radio, on-line. But, you must be able to turn in a copy of or link to the media article. The other requirement is that you must be able to obtain the original peer-reviewed publication that they reference in the media article to use in your analysis and to turn in. Many media reports are based on conference presentations those will not work for this project. You would probably be well-served by making sure you meet both of these requirements and then ask me to approve the story. There is a grid attached below for this assignment that you can use to make sure you cover essential criteria for comparing these two pieces of information.
Headlines Presentation Guidelines: You will prepare a Powerpoint presentation focused on how the media report compares to the scientific study it is based on. Basically you will take the criteria and report on it. The presentation should be at least 10 slides and MUST be a voiced-over presentation. So you will present your slides with audio (you talking).
Grading: the presentation will be graded on a 100 point scale. I will be looking for a coherent presentation; appropriate formatting, spelling, grammar; and a thoughtful analysis of the criteria.
Make sure to cover how well the headline covered the following:
Novelty of Treatment – Accurate information on novelty (or lack thereof)
Availability of Treatment – Accurate information on availability of treatment in U.S. If the story projects possible future availability, it justifies the projected time frame and describes the basis and reliability of the source making that projection.
Treatment Options – Mentions appropriate alternatives and provides advantages/disadvantages of the new idea compared with existing approaches. Explains how the new treatment (or test) fits into the realm of existing approaches.
Disease Mongering – No obvious elements of disease-mongering
Quality of Evidence – Where relevant, there is mention of strength of
evidence and correct interpretation, demonstrating a grasp of the hierarchy of evidence. (e.g., a story about a nonrandomized cohort or observational study should explain that researchers were not able to adjust for all factors that might explain an observed difference.)
Quantifying Treatment Benefits – Estimate in both absolute and relative frames, or absolute frame only, or rates with & without treatment
Treatment Harms – Balanced information about harms (frequency or seriousness)
Treatment Costs – Mentions comparative costs and comments on cost-effectiveness.
Sources of Information – Provides detail on information sources and their potential conflict of interest, and reports independent source, or mentions unsuccessful attempt to obtain corroboration
