Surveying the portrayal of mental illness across a jurisdiction: Is more than one method appropriate?

Abstract

The media have an important influence on the public’s perception of health. Coverage can lead to positive consequences, such as greater awareness of human immunodeficiency virus/acquired immunodeficiency syndrome, or adverse consequences, such as reduced uptake of immunization. Studies usually suggest that the media’s depiction of mental illness is negative, inaccurate and unhelpful. This is unfortunate as media portrayal may have an important influence on community attitudes towards mental health issues. However, not all results have been negative. Two recent studies of non-fiction media found that the vast majority of items were of good quality, with the only failing being the absence of information on appropriate services. There have been a number of approaches to assessing media coverage of health issues. It can be done by researchers themselves, but this is difficult when covering more than one or two print titles. Media-retrieval agencies are therefore commonly used to improve representativeness of the samples. Other methodological problems include the retrospective collection of data and the absence of standardized instruments with explicit criteria. Previously, the author assessed media coverage of mental health by asking patients with psychiatric