Understanding and optimising health-related press releases as complex public health interventions
Lead Research Organisation:
CARDIFF UNIVERSITY
Department Name: Sch of Psychology
Abstract
Public perception and understanding of science is crucial to society's ability to respond today's challenges, such as climate change, aging, and the rising cost of health care. It is therefore crucial to optimise the communication of new science so it is both accurate and engaging, and to avoid misleading readers or creating scares that harm public health (such as the MMR vaccine scare). The national press represents the greatest opportunity for promoting better understanding of health concerns and the science behind treatments and lifestyle improvements.
Since the majority of science news is communicated to journalists via press releases from academic journals and universities, we will focus on how to optimise this critical link in the chain. Our project aims to identify features of press releases that cause inaccurate press coverage and/or influence press uptake. For example, we hypothesise that some words used by scientists are routinely interpreted with stronger meanings by journalists and lay readers (such as 'predict' meaning 'statistically correlate with' for scientists, but 'causes' for lay readers). We will conduct experiments on these features, to gather empirical evidence on whether and how such features do cause misinterpretation. At the same time, we will conduct surveys of scientists, press officers and journalists to gather information about how they interact and what difficulties they experience. From this, we will produce evidence-based guidelines for optimising press releases.
Since the majority of science news is communicated to journalists via press releases from academic journals and universities, we will focus on how to optimise this critical link in the chain. Our project aims to identify features of press releases that cause inaccurate press coverage and/or influence press uptake. For example, we hypothesise that some words used by scientists are routinely interpreted with stronger meanings by journalists and lay readers (such as 'predict' meaning 'statistically correlate with' for scientists, but 'causes' for lay readers). We will conduct experiments on these features, to gather empirical evidence on whether and how such features do cause misinterpretation. At the same time, we will conduct surveys of scientists, press officers and journalists to gather information about how they interact and what difficulties they experience. From this, we will produce evidence-based guidelines for optimising press releases.
Planned Impact
Who will benefit from this research and how?
The UK public. The aim of the project is to benefit the public both in their decisions about illness and health - both everyday lifestyle choices and more serious deliberations about illness or health. The national news frequently carries stories relevant to such decisions, and therefore our aim is to improve the accuracy and framing of these stories by understanding and optimising the influence of their main source: press releases (PRs). In this way, PRs are complex health interventions.
Journalists. The majority of journalists wish to report science and health news accurately and fairly. Modern time pressures often mean that they cannot carry out as much investigation and background research as they would like, which forces them to increasingly rely on pre-packaged PRs. Journalists will thus benefit from improvement to PRs that help them both quickly extract the key points relevant for newsworthiness, but at the same time do not mislead and provide important contextual information in a way that will be easily noticed and understood.
Press officers. Like journalists, the majority of press officers wish to communicate new science and health findings accurately and fairly. Thus press officers will benefit from improved understanding of the how different factors in PRs influence news uptake and content, encouraging journalists to take an interest in new findings, but without misleading them into exaggerated reports.
Scientists. The majority of scientists also wish to communicate new science and health findings accurately and fairly, but can be seduced by the pressures of 'impact' and the belief that findings must be spun to gain attention. Better understanding of how phrasing and presentation of science influences news interest and content will enable effective collaboration between scientists and press officers to optimise PRs, and is also likely to benefit any direct interaction between scientists and journalists. In turn, the scientists will feel happier that their media interactions are fairer and better founded in evidence.
Doctors. The national press has been shown to influence doctors both directly by priming their awareness of diseases/conditions, and indirectly through the behaviours of their patients. Improved accuracy in health-relevant stories should make both these influences beneficial rather than detrimental.
The UK public. The aim of the project is to benefit the public both in their decisions about illness and health - both everyday lifestyle choices and more serious deliberations about illness or health. The national news frequently carries stories relevant to such decisions, and therefore our aim is to improve the accuracy and framing of these stories by understanding and optimising the influence of their main source: press releases (PRs). In this way, PRs are complex health interventions.
Journalists. The majority of journalists wish to report science and health news accurately and fairly. Modern time pressures often mean that they cannot carry out as much investigation and background research as they would like, which forces them to increasingly rely on pre-packaged PRs. Journalists will thus benefit from improvement to PRs that help them both quickly extract the key points relevant for newsworthiness, but at the same time do not mislead and provide important contextual information in a way that will be easily noticed and understood.
Press officers. Like journalists, the majority of press officers wish to communicate new science and health findings accurately and fairly. Thus press officers will benefit from improved understanding of the how different factors in PRs influence news uptake and content, encouraging journalists to take an interest in new findings, but without misleading them into exaggerated reports.
Scientists. The majority of scientists also wish to communicate new science and health findings accurately and fairly, but can be seduced by the pressures of 'impact' and the belief that findings must be spun to gain attention. Better understanding of how phrasing and presentation of science influences news interest and content will enable effective collaboration between scientists and press officers to optimise PRs, and is also likely to benefit any direct interaction between scientists and journalists. In turn, the scientists will feel happier that their media interactions are fairer and better founded in evidence.
Doctors. The national press has been shown to influence doctors both directly by priming their awareness of diseases/conditions, and indirectly through the behaviours of their patients. Improved accuracy in health-relevant stories should make both these influences beneficial rather than detrimental.
Publications
Adams RC
(2017)
How readers understand causal and correlational expressions used in news headlines.
in Journal of experimental psychology. Applied
Adams RC
(2019)
Claims of causality in health news: a randomised trial.
in BMC medicine
Bott L
(2019)
Caveats in science-based news stories communicate caution without lowering interest.
in Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied
Bratton L
(2019)
The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: a replication study.
in Wellcome open research
Bratton L
(2020)
Causal overstatements reduced in press releases following academic study of health news.
in Wellcome open research
Bratton L
(2020)
Causal claims about correlations reduced in press releases following academic study of health news
in Wellcome Open Research
Bratton L
(2019)
The association between exaggeration in health-related science news and academic press releases: a replication study
in Wellcome Open Research
Sumner P
(2014)
The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study.
in BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
Description | We have found the sources of exaggerations in science and health news. We have worked out how readers commonly interpret causal phrases. We have shown that caveats do not harm news uptake and do appear in news. We have replicated these results for both university press releases and academic journal press releases. We ran real-world trial and those results showed that inserting more caution into press releases does not harm news interest. It also improves the correspondence between what the news says and what the appropriate conclusions of the research are. |
Exploitation Route | Press officers and academics will amend press release practices. We are developing training courses and guidelines in collaboration with press officers. |
Sectors | Communities and Social Services/Policy Creative Economy Education Environment Healthcare Other |
Description | We have Impact acceleration funding to develop training courses and guidelines with press officers, as well as to measure what has changed as a result of our publications. We found evidence of change to press release practice: fewer exaggerations. This evidence is now published (Bratton et al. 2020). Our research also helped motivate the Science Media Centre to produce a labelling system for press releases. |
First Year Of Impact | 2015 |
Sector | Creative Economy,Education,Healthcare,Other |
Impact Types | Cultural Societal Economic Policy & public services |
Description | Press release practice |
Geographic Reach | Europe |
Policy Influence Type | Influenced training of practitioners or researchers |
Description | ESRC Impact Acceleration Award |
Amount | £25,000 (GBP) |
Funding ID | ES/M500422/1 |
Organisation | Economic and Social Research Council |
Sector | Public |
Country | United Kingdom |
Start | 09/2016 |
End | 10/2017 |
Description | Impact Acceleration Account 2014 - Cardiff University |
Amount | £1,597,842 (GBP) |
Funding ID | ES/M500422/1 |
Organisation | Economic and Social Research Council |
Sector | Public |
Country | United Kingdom |
Start | 05/2014 |
End | 03/2019 |
Description | Dutch team |
Organisation | Leiden University |
Country | Netherlands |
Sector | Academic/University |
PI Contribution | A Dutch team replicated our work. We then met them and provided data for a joint project on the use of quotes in health news. The paper is under preparation. |
Collaborator Contribution | They replicated our work, provided data for the next joint paper, and wrote the paper. |
Impact | Multidisciplinary - Psychology and Journalism |
Start Year | 2017 |
Description | Woloshin and Schwartz (USA) |
Organisation | Dartmouth College |
Country | United States |
Sector | Academic/University |
PI Contribution | We have provided data for their analysis for joint publication |
Collaborator Contribution | They have analysed and written the paper |
Impact | Multidisciplnary - Psychology and media studies |
Start Year | 2017 |
Description | Brain Games and Psychology Conference events in partnership with Techniquest |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | Regional |
Primary Audience | Schools |
Results and Impact | We are involved in Cardiff University Brain Games - and outreach program for inspiring school children to take an interest in psychology and neuroscience. We have led an arm of this partnering with Techniquest to run events for A level children (about 300 children so far). Previously Brain Games was entirely aimed at primary schools. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014,2015,2016,2017,2018 |
Description | CPD for teachers, providing tools for teaching research skills at A level. |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | Regional |
Primary Audience | Schools |
Results and Impact | We ran a CPD for Psychology teachers in South Wales, where we provided new material and training for different parts of the A level syllabus, including making research methods fun using news stories, as well as topics such as mental health and impulsivity. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2017 |
Description | Interview for BBC 'Trust me I'm a Doctor' |
Form Of Engagement Activity | A press release, press conference or response to a media enquiry/interview |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | International |
Primary Audience | Media (as a channel to the public) |
Results and Impact | The flagship BBC health program decided to have a section on whether you can trust health news. This decision was partly based on our research and associated publicity. We were interviewed for background information, although we did not appear in the program. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2018 |
Description | Three presentations at Press Officer events |
Form Of Engagement Activity | Participation in an activity, workshop or similar |
Part Of Official Scheme? | No |
Geographic Reach | National |
Primary Audience | Professional Practitioners |
Results and Impact | We have been invited three times to present our findings and discuss their implications with STEMPRA - the STEM press officers' association. On the latest occasion (2018) the even was purely organised for us. |
Year(s) Of Engagement Activity | 2014,2016,2018 |