The Study Focus on no Specific Condition
Conditions
Keywords
Spin, misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, misleading extrapolation, animal studies, cell culture studies, pre-clinical studies, Misleading reporting, Misleading interpretation, Misleading extrapolation, Animal studies, Cell culture studies, Pre-clinical studies
Brief summary
The main objective of this study is to compare the interpretation of health news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies with or without spin (i.e., distortion of research results). The news items which reported those studies evaluating the treatment effect either in cell culture studies or animal studies, have high number of spin in the headline and text and received high online public attention will be selected. Spin will be deleted and will rewrite the news items without spin. This sample of news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies with and without spin will be interpreted by English-speaking population.
Detailed description
Health news is an important way to communicate updated medical research to the public. News items reporting the results of medical research attract a large audience. However, the quality of reporting in health news is questionable. The merits of a wide range of treatments and tests are overplayed and harms are underplayed. Several studies have shown the presence of spin (i.e., distorted presentation of study results) in health news. Distorted facts can be misleading and can affect the behaviour of physicians, healthcare providers and patients. However, little research has assessed whether spin can affect readers' interpretation of health news items. Objective: To compare the interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin. News items reporting pre-clinical studies evaluating the effect of a pharmacological treatment that received high online public attention will be focused. Spin is defined as a misrepresentation of study results whatever the motive (intentionally or unintentionally) to highlight that the beneficial effect of the intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. Hypothesis: The hypothesis of this study is that the spin can influence the reader's interpretation of health news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies. Design: A randomized controlled trial 1. Interventions: Health news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies with and without spin will be compared. A sample of health news items reporting the results of pre-clinical studies evaluating the effect of pharmacologic treatment and containing spin in the headline and text will be selected. Spin will be deleted in the selected news items and will be rewritten the news without spin. 2. Participants: The participants will include English-speaking population from FindParticipants (https://www.findparticipants.com/). 3. Sample size: For this RCT, the sample size will be 300 participants. 4. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome will be participants' interpretation of the benefit of treatment after reading the news (What do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]). 5. Expected results: This study will evaluate the impact of spin on the interpretation of news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies by English-speaking population.
Interventions
OTHERNews items with spin
Interpretation of news items with spin
Interpretation of news items without spin
Sponsors
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Study design
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Intervention model
PARALLEL
Primary purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE (Subject)
Masking description
Participants will be blinded to the study hypothesis.
Intervention model description
Two arms, parallel group, randomized controlled trial
Eligibility
Sex/Gender
ALL
Age
18 Years to No maximum
Healthy volunteers
Yes
Inclusion criteria
* Native English speakers or have a very good level in understanding of English language
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X. We ask participants, What do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | With the choices of anwsers on a 10 points Likert scale, (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of efficacy, safety, availability and clinical utility in existing clinical practice for the treatment X. We ask the participants: What do you think is the size of the potential benefit for patients? | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | With the choices of anwsers on a 5 points scale, (scale, \[none, small, moderate or large\]) analysis: none, small vs moderate or large |
| How safe do you think that treatment X would be for patients? | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | With the choices of anwsers on a 10 points Likert scale, (scale, 0 \[very unsafe\] to 10 \[very safe\]) |
| Do you think this treatment should be offered to patients in the short term? | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | With the choices of anwsers on a 10 points Likert scale, (scale, 0 \[absolutely no\] to 10 \[absolutely yes\]) |
| Do you think this treatment will make a difference in the existing clinical practice? | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | With the choices of anwsers on a 10 points Likert scale, (scale, 0 \[absolutely no\] to 10 \[absolutely yes\]) |
Countries
France
Outcome results
None listed