From pharmaceutical company funding to the mentioning of brand name medications, there are several potential sources of bias in medical news media coverage. According to a report published in the October 1 issue of JAMA, news articles frequently fail to report these sources of bias and other conflicts of interest.
Both physicians and laymen consider news articles an important source of medical information. Michael Hochman, M.D. (Cambridge Health Alliance and Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Mass.) and colleagues write that, “An increasingly recognized source of commercial bias in medical research is the funding of studies by companies with a financial interest in the results.” Commercial bias exists when news articles use brand medication names rather than generic names and when news or research articles are funded by a particular group, but we currently lack research on how frequently these practices occur.
Hochman and colleagues analyzed pharmaceutical-funded medication studies that appeared in five major medical journals – JAMA, New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, Archives of Internal Medicine and the Annals of Internal Medicine – and their associated U.S. newspaper articles and online new articles. The researchers assessed the frequency and prominence of funding source indication, and they noted how often articles used brand or generic names to refer to medications. Additionally, the researchers surveyed editors at the 100 most widely circulated U.S. newspapers in order to assess the practices of each publication in divulging company funding and using generic medication names.
Of the 306 news articles identified by the authors, 175 were from newspaper sources and 131 from online sources. In 42% of the 306 articles about company-funded medication studies, the funding source was not reported. This practice of not reporting the funding source was not unique to print or online media, as the authors found no significant difference in nonreporting rates between articles from the two media types. Two hundred seventy-seven of the 306 news articles dealt with medications that had both generic and brand names. About 38% of these 277 used only brand names, and 67% used brand names in at least half of the references to the medication.
When asked about reporting company funding in medical research articles, 88% of newspaper editors indicated that his/her publication often or always did. About 77% indicated that they often or always used generic names to refer to medication in medical research articles. Only 3% of editors identified that their publication had a written policy that mandated the reporting of company funding in articles about medical research, and 2% of the editors noted a written policy that required predominantly generic names to be used when referring to medications.
The news article analysis and the survey of editors were not always in sync for many publications. For example, the researchers analyzed 104 newspaper articles from publications whose editors indicated that company funding was always reported. The researchers found that 45% of these articles did not cite company funding. A similar result was found in an analysis of 75 newspaper articles from publications whose editors said that generic names were always used; 76% used brand names in at least half of the medication references.
“Our findings raise several concerns. For patients and physicians to evaluate new research findings, it is important that they know how the research was funded so they can assess whether commercial biases may have affected the results. Additionally, the use of generic medication names by the news media is preferable so that physicians and patients learn to refer to medications by their generic names, a practice that is likely to reduce medication errors and may decrease unnecessary health care costs,” conclude Hochman and colleagues.
News Media Coverage of Medication Research: Reporting Pharmaceutical Company Funding and Use of Generic Medication Names
Michael Hochman; Steven Hochman; David Bor; Danny McCormick
JAMA (2008). 300[13]: pp. 1544-1550.
Written by: Peter M Crosta