Marshall Olivia, Blaylock Rebecca, Murphy Clare, Sanders Julia
Centre for Reproductive Research and Communication, British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), London, EC4A 1JQ, UK.
School of Healthcare Sciences, Cardiff University, Cardiff, CF14 4XN, UK.
Wellcome Open Res. 2021 May 14;6:114. doi: 10.12688/wellcomeopenres.16744.1. eCollection 2021.
The UK print and online media is an important channel by which scientific research is communicated to the public. Media risk messages relating to pregnancy or fertility contribute to the context of reproductive decision making, but their fidelity to the underlying science has been questioned. We measured the volume, distribution and content of science-based risk headlines relating to pregnancy or fertility in the UK media over four months. We grouped headlines into unique stories and categorised them by exposure and outcome of interest. We selected four unique stories for closer content analysis and assessed their fidelity to the underlying science, with attention to the role of press releases. We identified 171 headlines over four months (average 43 per month), comprising 56 unique stories. The unique stories most commonly concerned maternal risk factors (n=46) and child health outcomes (n=46). Maternal health outcomes were less frequently the focus (n=20). The most common risk factors in the media coverage were maternal food and drink (n=15), maternal medication and medical interventions (n=9), and maternal health factors (n=6). Media reports were largely faithful to press releases. Where substantive deviations from the underlying scientific study were identified, these could mostly be traced back to press releases or quotes from the study's authors. Press releases often omitted caveats which were reinstated at the media reporting stage, alongside additional expert criticism. Frequent science-based risk messages in the UK media frame mothers as vectors of potential harm to children, who are the focus of health outcomes. Largely, the media does not introduce misinformation, but reports press releases faithfully with additional caveats and expert commentary. Press releases fulfil an interpretative role, often omitting caveats and introducing new elements and advice to women. Their role as a bridge between scientific and lay audiences is discussed.
英国的印刷媒体和在线媒体是向公众传播科学研究成果的重要渠道。与怀孕或生育相关的媒体风险信息会影响生殖决策的背景，但这些信息与基础科学的契合度受到了质疑。我们对英国媒体在四个月内发布的与怀孕或生育相关的基于科学的风险头条新闻的数量、分布和内容进行了测量。我们将头条新闻归为不同的独特报道，并根据感兴趣的暴露因素和结果进行分类。我们挑选了四个独特报道进行更深入的内容分析，并评估它们与基础科学的契合度，同时关注新闻稿的作用。我们在四个月内共识别出171条头条新闻（平均每月43条），涵盖56个独特报道。这些独特报道最常涉及的是孕产妇风险因素（46条）和儿童健康结果（46条）。孕产妇健康结果作为报道重点的情况较少（20条）。媒体报道中最常见的风险因素是孕产妇的饮食（15条）、孕产妇用药和医疗干预（9条）以及孕产妇健康因素（6条）。媒体报道在很大程度上忠实于新闻稿。在发现与基础科学研究存在实质性偏差的地方，这些偏差大多可追溯到新闻稿或研究作者的引述。新闻稿往往省略了一些限制条件，而这些条件在媒体报道阶段又被重新提及，同时还伴有更多专家的批评。英国媒体中频繁出现的基于科学的风险信息将母亲们描绘成可能对孩子造成潜在伤害的载体，而孩子是健康结果的关注焦点。总体而言，媒体并没有引入错误信息，而是如实地报道新闻稿，并增加了一些限制条件和专家评论。新闻稿起到了解释性作用，常常省略限制条件，并向女性介绍新的内容和建议。我们还讨论了新闻稿在科学受众和普通受众之间所扮演的桥梁角色。
