Abstract
Objective:To examine how health advice is provided in popular magazines and the quality of that advice. Methods:A prospective quantitative analysis of the quality of health advice provided in Australian magazines between July and December 2011 was conducted. A rating instrument was adapted from the Media Doctor Australia rating tool used to assess quality of health news reporting. Criteria included: recommends seeing a doctor; advice based on reliable evidence; advice clear and easily applied; benefits presented meaningfully; potential harms mentioned; evidence of disease mongering; availability and cost of treatments; obvious advertising; vested interest, and anecdotal evidence. Results:163 health advice articles were rated showing a wide variation in the quality of advice presented between magazines. Magazines with ‘health’ in the title, rated most poorly with only 36% (26/73) of these articles presenting clear and meaningful advice and 52% (38/73) giving advice based on reliable evidence. Conclusions:Australian magazines, especially those with health in the title, generally presented poor quality, unreliable health advice. Teen magazine Dolly provided the highest quality advice. Implications:Consumers need to be aware of this when making health choices.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
