Media Reporting of Health Interventions: Signs of Improvement, but Major Problems Persist

Background: Studies have persistently shown deficiencies in medical reporting by the mainstream media. We have been monitoring the accuracy and comprehensiveness of medical news reporting in Australia since mid 2004. This analysis of more than 1200 stories in the Australian media compares different types of media outlets and examines reporting trends over time. Methods and Findings: Between March 2004 and June 2008 1230 news stories were rated on a national medical news monitoring web site, Media Doctor Australia. These covered a variety of health interventions ranging from drugs, diagnostic tests and surgery to dietary and complementary therapies. Each story was independently assessed by two reviewers using ten criteria. Scores were expressed as percentages of total assessable items deemed satisfactory according to a coding guide. Analysis of variance was used to compare mean scores and Fishers exact test to compare proportions. Trends over time were analysed using un-weighted linear regression analysis. Broadsheet newspapers had the highest average satisfactory scores: 58% (95% CI 56–60%), compared with tabloid newspapers and online news outlets, 48% (95% CI 44–52) and 48% (95% CI 46–50) respectively. The lowest scores were assigned to stories broadcast by human interest/current affairs television programmes (average score 33% (95% CI 28–38)). While there was a non- significant increase in average scores for all outlets, a significant improvement was seen in the online news media: a rise of 5.1% (95%CI 1.32, 8.97; P 0.009). Statistically significant improvements were seen in coverage of the potential harms of interventions, the availability of treatment or diagnostic options, and accurate quantification of benefits. Conclusion: Although the overall quality of medical reporting in the general media remains poor, this study showed modest improvements in some areas. However, the most striking finding was the continuing very poor coverage of health news by commercial current affairs television programs

Suicide trends in the early months of the COVID-19 pandemic: an interrupted time-series analysis of preliminary data from 21 countries

BackgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic is having profound mental health consequences for many people. Concerns have been expressed that at its most extreme, this may manifest itself in increased suicide rates.MethodsWe sourced real-time suicide data from around the world via a systematic internet search and recourse to our networks and the published literature. We used interrupted time series analysis to model the trend in monthly suicides prior to COVID-19 in each country/area-within-country, comparing the expected number of suicides derived from the model with the observed number of suicides in the early months of the pandemic. Countries/areas-within countries contributed data from at least 1 January 2019 to 31 July 2020 and potentially from as far back as 1 January 2016 until as recently as 31 October 2020. We conducted a primary analysis in which we treated 1 April to 31 July 2020 as the COVID-19 period, and two sensitivity analyses in which we varied its start and end dates (for those countries/areas-within-countries with data beyond July 2020).OutcomesWe sourced data from 21 countries (high income [n=16], upper-middle income [n=5]; whole country [n=10], area(s)-within-the-country [n=11]). In general, there does not appear to have been a significant increase in suicides since the pandemic began in the countries for which we had data. In fact, in a number of countries/areas-within-countries there appears to have been a decrease.InterpretationThis is the first study to examine suicides occurring in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in multiple countries. It offers a consistent picture, albeit from high- and upper-middle income countries, of suicide numbers largely remaining unchanged or declining in the early months of the pandemic. We need to remain vigilant and be poised to respond if the situation changes as the longer-term mental health and economic impacts of the pandemic unfold

Suicide risk and prevention during the COVID-19 pandemic

No abstract available

Prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C in people with severe mental illness: A systematic review and meta-analysis

BackgroundAlthough people with serious mental illnesses have a high risk of contracting blood-borne viral infections, sexual health has largely been neglected by researchers and policy makers involved in mental health. Failure to address this shortcoming could increase morbidity and mortality as a result of undetected and untreated infection. We did a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate the prevalence of blood-borne viral infection in people with serious mental illness.MethodWe searched the Cochrane Library, Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, CINAHL, and DARE for studies of the prevalence of HIV, hepatitis B virus, and hepatitis C virus in people with serious mental illness, published between Jan 1, 1980, and Jan 1, 2015. We group prevalence data by region and by virus and estimated pooled prevalence. We did a sensitivity analysis of the effect of study quality on prevalence.FindingsAfter removal of duplicates, we found 373 abstracts, 91 of which met our eligibility criteria. The prevalences of blood-borne viral infections in people with serious mental illness were higher than in the general population in places with low prevalence of blood-borne viruses, such as the USA and Europe, and on par with the general population in regions with high prevalence of blood-borne viruses (Africa for HIV and southeast Asia for hepatitis B virus and hepatitis C virus). Pooled prevalence of HIV in people with serious mental illness in the USA was 6·0% (95% CI 4·3–8·3). Sensitivity analysis showed that quality scores did not significantly affect prevalence.InterpretationPeople with serious mental illness are at risk of blood-borne viral infections. However, because of methodological limitations of the studies the prevalence might be overestimated. Serious mental illness is unlikely to be a sole risk factor and risk of blood-borne viral infection is probably multifactorial and associated with low socioeconomic status, drug and alcohol misuse, ethnic origin, and sex. Health providers should routinely discuss sexual health and risks for blood-borne viruses (including risks related to drug misuse) with people who have serious mental illness, as well as offering testing and treatment for those at risk