Abstract
BackgroundAlthough experts agree that Web-based health information often contains exaggeration and misrepresentation of science, it is not yet known how this information affects the readers’ sentiments.ObjectiveThis study aimed to investigate whether specific aspects of Web-based diabetes research news are associated with positive or negative sentiments in readers.MethodsA retrospective observational study of the comments on diabetes research news posted on Facebook pages was conducted as a function of the innovations’ developmental phase, the intended treatment effect, and the use of strong language to intensify the news messages (superlatives). Data for the investigation were drawn from the diabetes research news posted between January 2014 and January 2018 on the two largest Dutch Facebook pages on diabetes and the corresponding reader comments. By manually coding these Facebook user comments, three binary outcome variables were created, reflecting the presence of a positive sentiment, the presence of a negative sentiment, and the presence of a statement expressing hopefulness.ResultsFacebook users made a total of 3710 comments on 173 diabetes research news posts that were eligible for further analysis. Facebook user comments on posts about diabetes prevention (odds ratio [OR] 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.84), improved blood glucose regulation (OR 0.68, 95% CI 0.56-0.84), and symptom relief (OR 0.31, 95% CI 0.21-0.44) were associated with less positive sentiments as compared with potential diabetes cures. Furthermore, comments on innovations supported by preclinical evidence in animals were associated with more positive sentiments (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.07-1.99) and statements expressing hope (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.01-2.14), when compared with innovations that have evidence from large human trials. This study found no evidence for the associations between language intensification of the news posts and the readers’ sentiments.ConclusionsOur finding that the attitudes toward diabetes research news on Facebook are most positive when clinical efficacy is not (or not yet) proven in large patient trials suggests that news authors and editors, as well as medical professionals, must exercise caution when acting as a conduit for diabetes research news.
Highlights
BackgroundPatients who monitor online media for health information may experience frequent exposure to exaggeration and misrepresentation of medical science [1,2,3,4,5]
Earlier research by our group, on the media coverage of innovative diabetes therapies, found that 83% of Dutch newspaper reports about innovative diabetes treatments lack any reference to clinical trials in humans [9]
In the United States, a study on health news appraisals found that most authors do not satisfactorily discuss the quality of the evidence [6]
Summary
BackgroundPatients who monitor online media for health information may experience frequent exposure to exaggeration and misrepresentation of medical science [1,2,3,4,5]. Two typical examples of such infelicitous reporting are the depiction of observed correlations as causal connections—for example, between lifestyle behaviors and disease outcomes—and the inflation of preclinical animal testing results, often followed by the inference of these to humans [6,7] This is misleading when one considers that about 88% of the pharmaceutical developments that reach the first human trials will never reach the phase of market approval [8]. Data for the investigation were drawn from the diabetes research news posted between January 2014 and January 2018 on the two largest Dutch Facebook pages on diabetes and the corresponding reader comments By manually coding these Facebook user comments, three binary outcome variables were created, reflecting the presence of a positive sentiment, the presence of a negative sentiment, and the presence of a statement expressing hopefulness. Conclusions: Our finding that the attitudes toward diabetes research news on Facebook are most positive when clinical efficacy is not (or not yet) proven in large patient trials suggests that news authors and editors, as well as medical professionals, must exercise caution when acting as a conduit for diabetes research news
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callDisclaimer: 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.
