美国新闻中未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法的科学证据和不确定性描述：内容分析研究。
Descriptions of Scientific Evidence and Uncertainty of Unproven COVID-19 Therapies in US News: Content Analysis Study.
机构信息
Biomedical Ethics Research Program, Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
Department of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, United States.
出版信息
JMIR Infodemiology. 2024 Aug 29;4:e51328. doi: 10.2196/51328.
BACKGROUND
Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty.
OBJECTIVE
This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines.
METHODS
We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority.
RESULTS
The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. "Government" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while "expert" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a "prominent person," of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS
These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.
背景
未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法的政治化和错误信息或虚假信息导致在向公众介绍科学时出现了沟通挑战，尤其是在公众高度恐慌和不确定的时期。
目的
本研究旨在探讨在有疗效的治疗方法和疫苗问世之前，美国新闻如何报道 3 种未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法的科学证据和不确定性。
方法
我们对 2020 年初未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法进行了媒体分析。系统分析了 2020 年 1 月 1 日至 2020 年 7 月 30 日期间，传统和在线美国新闻报道中与未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法（羟氯喹、瑞德西韦和恢复期血浆）相关的 479 次讨论，主题为科学证据、证据细节和局限性、安全性、疗效和权威来源。
结果
大多数讨论都包含科学证据（n=322，67%），但只有 24%（n=116）的讨论提到了出版物。“政府”是瑞德西韦安全性和疗效主张中最常被提及的权威来源（n=43，35%），而“专家”主张大多与恢复期血浆有关（n=22，38%）。羟氯喹的大多数主张（n=236，79%）是由“知名人士”提出的，其中 97%（n=230）来自美国前总统特朗普。尽管包含了科学证据，但许多关于安全性和疗效的主张都是由非专家提出的。在讨论未经证实的 COVID-19 疗法时，很少有新闻报道表达科学不确定性，因为证据的局限性很少包含在新闻报道的正文中（n=125，26%），也很少出现在标题（n=2，2%）或导言段（n=9，9%；P<.001）中。
结论
这些结果表明，尽管科学证据在新闻报道中被讨论得相对频繁，但科学不确定性很少被报道，也很少出现在突出的标题和导言段中。
Zotero 插件