Can health journalists bridge the state-of-the-science gap in mammography guidelines?

Science Communication

Volumn 27, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 331-351

  Chew, Fiona ^a   Mandelbaum Schmid, Judith ^a,b,d,e   Gao, Sue Kun ^c  

^a SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION   (Switzerland)

^c UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ZURICH   (Switzerland)

^e EPFL   (Switzerland)

Author keywords

Health and science journalism; Informed public; Magazine; Mammography guidelines; News media coverage

Indexed keywords

EID: 32944470557     PISSN: 10755470     EISSN: 15528545     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1075547005284751     Document Type: Review

References (54)

1. American Cancer Society. 2005. Cancer facts-figures 2005. Atlanta, GA: American Cancer Society. http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2002/results_single/ sect_01_table.01.pdf.
2. American Institute for Preventive Medicine. 2005. Medical self-care: How to be a better health care consumer. http://www.healthy.net/aipm/store/ CategoryInfo.sap?CatCode=2&SubCatCode=0.
3. Andsager, J. L., and A. Powers. 1999. Social or economic concerns: How news and women's magazines framed breast cancer in the 1990s. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 76: 531-541.
4. Blumenthal, H. T. 1998. Doctors, media and the quest for immortality. St. Louis Journalism Review 28: 14-15.
5. Brainard, J. 2004. How sound is Bush's "sound science"? Chronicle of Higher Education 50: A18 - A20.
6. Breast Cancer Action. 2005. Mammography screening and new technologies. http://www.bcaction.org/Pages/GetInformed/MammographyAndNewTech.html.
7. Burke, W., A. H. Olsen, L. E. Pinsky, S. E. Reynolds, and N. A. Press. 2001. Misleading presentation of breast cancer in popular magazines. American Society of Internal Medicine 4: 58-64.
8. Carter, L. 2002. Medicine in the media. USA Today Magazine 131: 60-62.
9. Chew, F., S. Palmer, and S. Kim. 1995. Source of information and knowledge about health and nutrition: Can viewing one television program make a difference? Public Understanding of Science 4: 17-29.
10. Dodd, G. D. 1993. American Cancer Society guidelines from the past to the present. Cancer 72: 1519-1521.
11. Eggener, S. 1998. The power of the pen: Medical journalism and public awareness. JAMA 279: 1400.
12. Elmore, J. G., K. Armstrong, C. D. Lehman, and S. W. Fletcher. 2005. Screening for breast cancer. JAMA 293: 125-156.
13. Ernster, V. L. 1997. Mammography screening for women aged 40 through 49. A guidelines saga and clarion call for informed decision making. American Journal of Public Health 87: 1103-1106.
14. Fletcher, S. W. 1995. Why question screening mammography for women in their forties? Radiologic Clinics of North America 33: 1259-1271.
15. Fletcher, S. W., W. Black, R. Harris, B. K. Rimer, and S. Shapiro. 1993. Report of the international workshop on screening for breast cancer. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 85: 1644-1656.
16. Friedman, S. M., S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers. 1999. Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17. Gallup Organization. 2002. Gallup poll September 2002 on health-related questions. Kaisernetwork.org's Health Poll Search. http://www.ropercenter.ucon.. .Xqt0Gf/HAHTpage/study_link?STDY_ID=25465.
18. Gregorio, D. I. 1999. Refutation and conjecture around consensus breast cancer screening guidelines. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice 5: 91-98.
19. Griffin, R. J. 1999. Using systematic thinking to choose and evaluate evidence. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M. Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 225-248. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20. Holtz, A.S. 2001. When should the public be informed of the results of medical research? Journal of the American Medical Association 289: 2944-2945.
21. Irwig, L., N. Houssami, and C. van Vliet. 2004. New technologies in screening for breast cancer: A systematic review of their accuracy. British Journal of Cancer 90: 2118-2122.
22. Kerlikowske, K. 1997. Efficacy of screening mammography among women aged 40 to 49 years and 50 to 69 years: Comparison of relative and absolute benefit. Journal of the National Cancer Institute Monograph 22: 79-86.
23. Kerlikowske, K., D. Grady, S. M. Rubin, C. Sandrock, and V. L. Ernster. 1995. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 273: 149-154.
24. Lantz, J. C., and W. L. Lanier. 2002. Observations from the Mayo Clinic National Conference on Medicine and the Media. Mayo Clinic Proceedings 77: 1306-1311.
25. Lerner, B. H. 2001. The breast cancer wars: Hope, fear and the pursuit of a cure in twentieth-century America. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Lerner, B. H. 2002. What's behind it all? The Washington Post, March 3.
27. Logan, R. A. 1991. Popularization versus secularization: Media coverage of health. In Risky business: Communicating issues of salience, risk and public policy, edited by L. Wilkins and P. Patterson, 43-59. New York: Greenwood.
28. Mayo Clinic. 2002. Mayo Clinic National Conference on Medicine and the Media: Press release, September 26, 2002. http://www.newswise.com/articles/2002/ 9/MEDCONF.MMC.html.
29. Miller, A. B. 1994. Mammography in women under 50. Hematology/Oncology Clinics of North America 8: 165-177.
30. Morrison, A. S., J. Brisson, and N. Khalid. 1988. Breast cancer incidence and mortality in the Breast Cancer Detection Demonstration Project. Journal of National Cancer Institute 80: 1540-1547.
31. National Cancer Institute. 1997. Content analysis of media coverage of NCI's new mammography recommendations May 1998. Bethesda, MD: National Cancer Institute, Office of Communications.
32. National Cancer Institute. 2005a. National Cancer Institute. 2005a. What you need to know about breast cancer. Screening mammogram. http://www.cancer. gov/cancertopics/wyntk/breast/page5 (Accessed Dec 29, 2005).
33. National Cancer Institute. 2005b. Genetics of breast and ovarian cancer. General information. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/genetics/breast-and- ovarian/healthprofessional%23Section_2.
34. National Cancer Institute. 2005c. National Cancer Institute. 2005c. Cancer FactSheet. Screening Mammograms: Questions and Answers. http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Detection/screening-mammograms (Accessed Dec 29, 2005).
35. National Cancer Institute. 1997a. Breast cancer screening for women ages 40-49. NIH consensus statement no. 103. http://consensus.nih.gov/cons/103/ 103_statement.htm.
36. National Cancer Institute. 1997b. National Cancer Advisory Board issues mammography screening recommendations. Press release. http://www.nih.gov/news/ pr/mar97/nci-27b.htm.
37. National Cancer Institute. 2005. About the consensus programs, NIH Consensus Development Program. http://consensus.nih.gov/about/about.htm.
38. Rensberger, B. 1997. Covering science for newspapers. In A field guide for science writers, edited by D. Blum and M. Knudson, 7-16. New York: Oxford University Press.
39. Ringash, J. 2001. Preventive health care, 2001 update: Screening mammography among women aged 40-49 years at average risk of breast cancer. Canadian Medical Association Journal 164: 469-476.
40. Sackett, D. L., S. E. Straus, W. S. Richardson, W. Rosenberg, and R. B. Haynes. 2000. Evidence-based medicine. 2d ed. New York: Churchill Livingstone.
41. Sanders, L. 2003. Medicine's progress, one setback at a time. The New York Times Magazine, March 16, 2003, 29-31.
42. Schellenbach, J. 1997. American Cancer Society response to National Cancer Institute recommendation on screening mammography and President Clinton's pledge to support new guidelines. http://www.cancer.org/docroot/MED/content/ MED_2_1X_American_Cancer_Society_ Response _To_National_Cancer_Institute_Recommendation_On_Screening.asp.
43. Schwartz, L. M., and S. Woloshin. 2002a. Marketing medicine to the public: A reader's guide. JAMA 287: 774-775.
44. Schwartz, L. M., and S. Woloshin. 2002b. News media coverage of screening mammography for women in their 40s and tamoxifen for primary prevention of breast cancer. JAMA 287: 3136-3142.
45. Shoemaker, P., and S. Reese. 1996. Mediating the message: Theories of influence on mass media content. 2d ed. White Plains, NY: Longman.
46. Smigel, K. 1992. New data suggest fewer mammograms for younger, older women. Journal of the National Cancer Institute 84: 1860-1862.
47. Stolberg, S. G. 2002. Study says clinical guides often hide ties of doctors. The New York Times, February 6, 2002.
48. Tate, J. 2004. Wrappedup in pink ribbon: The mediated construction of breast cancer reality. Presented at the annual conference of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, Toronto.
49. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. 2002. Screening for breast cancer: Recommendations and rationale. Annals of Internal Medicine 137: 344-346.
50. van Trigt, A. M., L. T. de Jong-van den Berg, F. M. Haaijer-Ruskamp, J. Willems, and T. F. Tromp. 1994. Journalists and their sources of ideas and information on medicine. Social Science-Medicine 38: 637-643.
51. Wazana, A. 2000. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. JAMA 283: 373-380.
52. Wells, J., P. Marshall, B. Crawley, and K. Dickersin. 2001. Newspaper reporting of screening mammography. Annals of Internal Medicine 135: 1029-1037.
53. Woloshin, S., and L. M. Schwartz. 2002. Press releases: Translating research into news. JAMA 287: 2856-2858.
54. Zehr, S. C. 1999. Scientists' representations of uncertainty. In Communicating uncertainty: Media coverage of new and controversial science, edited by S. M Friedman, S. Dunwoody, and C. L. Rogers, 3-22. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.