Search

The article talks about the efforts by clinical, consumer and research organisations in Australia to deal with the challenges of overdiagnosis in the country, discussing the efforts of international community to deal with the issue, and the growth in global evidence base for the issue.

The article presents an overview of the influence that pharmaceutical companies have in the area of the practice of medicine and in the areas of medical research and education. A discussion of corrupt activities and unethical behaviors which have been seen in pharmaceutical companies, including CSL and Organon, is presented. Opinions are presented on the issue of pharmaceutical company influence from several individuals, including a pharmaceutical industry spokesperson and the leader of a pressure group.

Given how often the mass media reports stories about medicine, it is time to ask how well reporters cover the medical beat. Seen against a backdrop of soaring national drug costs and rising controversy over the pharmaceutical industry's influence within medicine, this evidence of biased media coverage demands attention and action. Alan Cassels and colleagues analyzed daily-newspaper stories from the year 2000 about five drugs--atorvastatin, celecoxib, donepezil, oseltamivir, and raloxifene--all selected for their high profile in the media. Their most startling findings are that only 32 percent of the articles mentioned potentially harmful effects. Similarly, when paying for celecoxib was about to cause major financial burdens for public and private health-insurers worldwide, only 13 percent of stories covered the drug's cost. More systematic studies suggest that many stories about new medicines tend to overstate benefits, understate risks and costs, and fail to disclose relevant financial ties. Overly rosy coverage of drugs may also result from the direct and indirect relations between journalists and drug companies. Some receive all-expenses-paid international trips from drug companies, and some accept generous medical-media awards sponsored by drug companies. It is critical that the bias in health care reporting towards biomedical research is not reinforced in educational efforts, at the expense of opportunities to improve media coverage of health systems, health inequalities, and the social determinants of health.

Reports on the launch of an international debate by Cochrane Collaboration about whether to embrace sponsorship from private industry in October 2003. Impact of drug company sponsorship on the systematic reviews of therapies being conducted by the group; Possible source of financing aside from private drug companies.

Reports on the action of the global Cochrane Collaboration to allay fears that drug company funding could damage the organisation's independence and credibility. Comments from Jim Neilson, a joint chairman of the collaboration; Annual colloquium held by the organisation in Barcelona, Spain; Discussion of industry funding; Division of the panel; Support of audience for the idea of prohibiting industry sponsorship; Existing policies; Comments from officials.

Reports on a bill before the U.S. Congress which asks health authorities to investigate if expensive new drugs offer value for money by comparing their risks and benefits with other treatments and older drugs. Resistance of drug companies to the bill; Current method of new drug approval in the U.S.; Passage of bill which would cost $75 million in studies; Health care costs which are becoming a political issue; Specific requirements of the bill; Comparison with drug approval procedures in Australia,Great Britain and Canada.

Although the media has a powerful influence on the public's perceptions, behaviours and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive little training in how to interpret and report on medical research. This study investigated the feasibility and acceptability of a multi-component training intervention for journalists in Australia. Method: We conducted a small pragmatic pilot with journalists using a pre- and post-design. Journalists attended a 90-minute online workshop delivered by expert researchers and clinicians via Zoom (instead of face-to-face, owing to pandemic restrictions). The training intervention covered a range of topics, including strengths and limitations of different study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening programs and overdiagnosis. The program also provided additional tools to help journalists with their reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. Eight journalists attended the online workshop and completed the pre- and post-workshop questionnaires. Feasibility Findings: suggest that the medical training program is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop had increased their confidence with reporting on medical tests and treatments. We observed increases in knowledge from pre- to post-workshop for all knowledge measures on common issues with health stories. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis, delivering the workshop in-person rather than online, and allowing more time for questions and discussion. Piloting suggested the multi-component training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights that will inform the development of a randomised trial to test the intervention's effectiveness in improving medical reporting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]