Off the record briefing June 2012

Off the record briefing June 2012 A risky business: reporting on statistics, research results and uncertainty Part 1: Kill or cure stories

http://kill-or-cure.heroku.com/a-z/a

‘… could give you cancer • Valuable and empowering information? • Harmless ‘infotaintment’? • Abdication of responsibility to your audience?

The Telegraph reported: “Researchers have found that the fumes from paraffin wax–the most common and cheapest form of candlewax – can be poisonous and even cause cancer.” “Behind the headlines” said: the candle risk reports stemmed from brief press releases and a presentation abstract at the American Chemical Society (ACS) and the data were impossible to evaluate. “It is possible that the study may never be published, as a great deal of research presented at Conferences does not make it into peer-reviewed journals.” IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NO PROPER EVIDENCE!

Advice from behind the headlines • Does the article support its claims with scientific research? • Is the article based on a conference abstract? • Was the research in humans? • How many people did the research study include? • Did the study have a control group? • Did the study actually assess what’s in the headline? • Who paid for and conducted the study?

Public service broadcasters don’t do sensation? • “Once a story gets spun into the ‘story of the day’ news organisations are expected to give it a mention. If you run it as you should do, including all the relevant qualifications, that tends to kill the story” -- Fran Unsworth, head of news gathering at the BBC, on the subject of “killer banana stories”

The Scotsman said: the “WHO's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) said a "causal link" had been established between radiomagnetic fields and an aggressive form of malignant brain tumour called glioma” Behind the headlines said, “…the classification means that the link is far from certain, with the IARC saying there is only ‘limited evidence’ of a link to brain tumours in humans, and that the results supporting a link may be due to other factors distorting study data. Overall, this classification should not be taken to mean that there is a definite link between mobile phone use and cancer, only that some initial (possibly anomalous) study results have highlighted a relationship that needs further robust scientific investigation.”

Update 1:Danish cohort study • Danish study 358,403 subscription holders, 3.8 million person years, 10,729 tumours of the CNS. In people with longest mobile phone (more than 13 years) use incidence rate ratio was 1.03 in men and 0.91 in women. • The study concludes “In this update of a large nationwide cohort study of mobile phone use, there were no increased risks of tumours of the CNS, providing little evidence of a causal association. • As a small to moderate increase in risk for subgroups of heavy users or after even longer induction periods than 10-15 years cannot be ruled out

Update 2: UK Health Protection Agency review • After looking at hundreds of evidence sources, the review concluded that there is still no convincing evidence that exposure to RF [radiofrequencies] below international guidelines causes any damage to health in adults or children. • The report suggests that to date there is no clear evidence that RF exposure might cause cancer. This is different from finding evidence that it does not cause cancer. The report calls for research to continue monitoring the effects of mobile phones. In particular, little is known about their longer-term effects and potential effects on children. A study should be undertaken to look at trends in the rates of brain tumours in the UK population by age and sex in relation to trends in mobile phone use. • The Department of Health currently advises that children and young people under 16 should be encouraged to use mobile phones for essential purposes only and should keep calls short. Using a hands-free kit and texting instead of calling are both ways to reduce RF exposure.

Presenting risk • How do journalists translate scientific reports into something their viewers/listeners/readers can understand, relate to, and use to take informed decisions about their own behaviour?

Absolute v relative Absolute: X increases your risk of brain cancer from 1 in 50,000 to 2 in 50,000 Relative: X doubles your risk of brain cancer HYPOTHETICAL EXAMPLE!

Population risk vs individual risk

Right message to the right people

Breast cancer • Stats for the UK show women have roughly 1 in 10 chance of getting breast cancer ever • But…

Under 30 years old the risk is 1 in 1,900 Under 50 years old the risk is 1in 50 By 85 years old it is 1 in 10

And yet… • Research done in Australia has shown that: • 44% of articles about breast screening portray women under 40 years of age • 50% of images show women under 40 years of age • J Health Comm 9:309-325

Exercise and weight There is growing evidence to show that keeping your weight down and doing moderate exercise may protect against some cancers. This is relevant to people who do very little exercise and who are overweight (not just obese)

However, for people who are slim and fit and eat healthily, the message is not that they are safe from cancer. • Factors such as age and genetic make up remain very important risk factors

Communicating about risk • Research shows that a the most effective risk communication uses a combination of absolute risk, relative risk, personal risk factors and prevention advice • Be clear about strength of evidence • Be clear to your readers/viewers/listeners about what this story really means for their cancer risk • Spell out the evidence on how to protect yourself against known risk factors

In summary • Journalists can help their readers/viewers/listeners to understand and manage their risk • A constant diet of cancer scares that are inaccurate or fail to accurately convey the true implications of the findings for readers/viewers/listeners can leave them fearful and confused, rather than informed and empowered

Points for discussion • Why is there such an appetite for these stories? • What are the pressures to run them? • Who generates them and why? • What message does this daily diet of kill or cure stories send out? • Does it matter? • How should journalists deal with these stories?

Off the record briefing June 2012