Editorial: Media magic or mayhem?

Abstract

Media; a loaded word with both positive and negative connotations. In the age of ready internet access, information exchange is facilitated and amplified worldwide. This brings people together and affords those with access the ability to stay informed. Whether that knowledge is a birth announcement on Facebook, a hurricane's wrath on a newsfeed, or the latest political Tweet, we take for granted what was not possible in the last century. Knowledge is, as they say, power. From a health perspective, media plays an integral role. More than 80% of Americans use social media and online sources to access health information [1]. Anyone with an internet connection can obtain extensive, vetted health information from reliable sources including the Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the WHO, and renowned academic centers around the world, among other reputable sources. Clinicians are also frequent media users, sharing cases and learning from one another to improve their skills and knowledge base on Twitter or Facebook [2]. However, media also provides its challenges in the health sector. Social media, in particular, is not subject to fact checking, and ‘fake news’ travels as quickly among ‘friends’ as real news does. Opinions are formed and solidified upon circulated headlines within the social ‘bubbles’ or ‘echo chambers’ we live in (our ‘friends’ or ‘groups’ on Facebook, for example) [3]. Such echo chambers bring like-minded individuals closer together and create safe spaces for dialogue, while potentially perpetuating misinformed belief models and purposefully blocking differing points of view [1]. But do such social ‘chats’ have large-scale health implications? Take, for example, vaccines and their suggested link to autism. Wakefield et al. published the possible association between the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine in 1998. Criticized for uncontrolled study design, small sample size, speculation in conclusions, conflicts of interest, and alleged misconduct and ethical violations, this article was retracted in 2010. Despite this retraction and subsequent studies refuting this association, the antivaccine movement persists, clinicians and parents express concerns about vaccines in modern times, and cases of measles and mumps are on the rise [4]. The Royal Society of Public Health in the United Kingdom surveyed parents in 2018 and found that 50% of parents with children under the age of 5 years had been exposed to negative vaccine message on social media and 28% incorrectly believed that one can have too many vaccines [5]. The more alarming a scientific finding is, the more media attention it gains. The general public and clinicians/scientists without significant financial resources may turn to open access journals of variable quality, many of which have a limited or nonexistent review process [4,6]. Similarly, preliminary research findings in abstract ‘quick shots’ may make interesting headlines or tweets, but many abstracts are not translated into peer reviewed manuscripts and those that are often have differing results and conclusion upon complete data analysis [1]. Although some of us may choose just to ignore the false health sound bites on Facebook, others argue that clinicians need an active presence in social media to combat ‘fake news’. In the Congo, health workers say they are fighting two outbreaks, Ebola and the fear and distrust created by misinformation spread through the media. UNICEF workers turn to WhatsApp and the local radio with expert communications to rebut rumors, while being careful not to restate the misinformation they are correcting lest it gets propagated [7]. Some scientists also feel we are duty bound to correct misinformation in the media lest the public loses trust in actual science altogether [6]. In this Adolescent Medicine section, Nereim, Bickham, and Rich (pp. 435–441) describe additional downsides to modern media access in their review of Problematic Interactive Media Use (PIMU). In the case of PIMU, it is the destabilization of one's life from excess interaction with media that is the problem, rather than the ‘fake news’ such media may spread. Mealey and Koenigs (pp. 442–447) counter the antivaccine media movement with an important evidence-based update on adolescent vaccination recommendations. Additional evidence-based, hot topic reviews include the medical consequences of anorexia nervosa by Chidiac (pp. 448–453) and an update on nonoccupational HIV postexposure prophylaxis by Koyama, Middlebrooks and Bullock (pp. 454–461). Gregorowski, Simpson, and Segal (pp. 462–468) review what is known and what remains misunderstood regarding the cause, presentation, and treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgia encephalomyelitis (CFS). Finally, Lin, Chadi, and Shrier (pp. 469–475) remind clinicians of the importance of mindfulness for patient overall wellness. Whether or not we, as providers, are active users of social media in our personal and/or professional lives, our patients are. Discussing their media use habits and directing them to vetted sites for health information, such as youngwomenshealth.org and youngmenshealthsite.org, are important modern-day interventions that will improve patient media literacy and reduce the dissemination of false health information. Acknowledgements None. Financial support and sponsorship This project was supported in part by the Maternal and Child Bureau (MCHB), Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) T71MC00009 LEAH training grant. The contents are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent the official views of, nor an endorsement, by HRSA, HHS, or the U.S. Government. Conflicts of interest There are no conflicts of interest.