The Study Focus on no Specific Condition
Conditions
Keywords
Spin, Misleading reporting, Misleading interpretation, Misleading extrapolation, Randomized controlled trials, Patients
Brief summary
The main objective of this study is to compare the interpretation of health news items reporting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with or without spin (i.e., distortion of research results). The news items which reported those studies evaluating the treatment effect, having highest 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 RCTs with and without spin will be interpreted by French-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: 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. To compare the interpretation of health news items reporting RCTs with or without spin. News items evaluating the effect of a pharmacological treatment that received high online public attention will be focused. Hypothesis: The hypothesis of this study is that the spin can influence the reader's interpretation of health news items reporting results of RCTs. Design: A randomized controlled trial 1. Interventions: Health news items reporting results of RCTs with and without spin will be compared. A sample of health news items reporting the results of RCTs evaluating the effect of pharmacologic treatment and containing highest number of spin in the headline and text will be selected. Spin will be deleted in the selected news items and will be rewritten the news items without spin. 2. Participants: The participants will include French-speaking population from an e-cohort Nutrinet santé. 3. Sample size will be 300 patients. 4. The primary outcome will be perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X. We will ask participants, what do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]). Perception of safety and beneficial effects of treatment in clinical studies is considered as a surrogate marker of health outcome as it may have an impact on the future development of the drug, and then the potential use of the drug for patients. 5. This study is approved by ethics review regulations by INSERM (CEEI-IRB): IRB00003888
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 French speakers
Exclusion criteria
\-
Design outcomes
Primary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | We will ask participants, what do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? With the choices of answers on a 10 point Likert scale, (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]) |
Secondary
| Measure | Time frame | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Perception of efficacy, safety, availability and clinical utility of the treatment X in existing clinical practice | As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours | We will ask participants, what do you think is the size of the potential benefit for patients? With the choices of answers on a 5 point 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 answers on a 10 point 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 answers on a 10 point 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 answers on a 10 point Likert scale, (scale, 0 \[absolutely no\] to 10 \[absolutely yes\]) |
Countries
France
Outcome results
None listed