Best practice guidelines: a worked example

Stuff has a headline “Living by the sea is good for your health” (with the page title “Life’s a beach”). The story starts

Sick people have been sent to the seaside for centuries and now a study has proven that living by the coast is good for your health.

Let’s see how it rates against the guidelines

State the source of the story – e.g. interview, conference, journal article, a survey from a charity or trade body, etc. – ideally with enough information for readers to look it up or a web link.

A pass: the journal name and the university name, though no link or researcher name.  I didn’t have too much trouble finding the paper, although the statement “published in the Health and Place journal this week” was a bit unhelpful.  It hasn’t been published in an issue of the journal, but it has been available online for three weeks.

 Specify the size and nature of the study – e.g. who/what were the subjects, how long did it last, what was tested or was it an observation? If space, mention the major limitations.

The size and nature of the study — “examined census data to determine how health varied across England” –are given. The NZ expert who was quoted mentioned the main non-technical limitation, which is that healthy people might be more likely to move to live near the sea.

When reporting a link between two things, indicate whether or not there is evidence that one causes the other.

There isn’t evidence, and the last paragraph of the story specifically claims that there is.

Give a sense of the stage of the research – e.g. cells in a laboratory or trials in humans – and a realistic time-frame for any new treatment or technology.

Not really relevant in this example

On health risks, include the absolute risk whenever it is available in the press release or the research paper – i.e. if ’cupcakes double cancer risk’ state the outright risk of that cancer, with and without cupcakes.

The absolute effect size is not mentioned in the story. It is in the research paper.  It is very very small. For example, among urban resideents: compared to living near the coast, people living 20-50km away were less likely to say they were in good health by half a percentage point.  Compared to those living more than 50km away the difference was a whole percentage point.

Especially on a story with public health implications, try to frame a new finding in the context of other evidence – e.g. does it reinforce or conflict with previous studies? If it attracts serious scientific concerns, they should not be ignored.

The context of other evidence was handled reasonably well.

If space, quote both the researchers themselves and external sources with appropriate expertise. Be wary of scientists and press releases over-claiming for studies.

They quoted a NZ researcher, from the University of Canterbury.

Distinguish between findings and interpretation or extrapolation; don’t suggest health advice if none has been offered.

Borderline at best.  There is a definite implication that moving to be by the sea would be healthier, with discussion of the cost and with quotes from a random family.

Remember patients: don’t call something a ’cure’ that is not a cure.

Not relevant in this example

Headlines should not mislead the reader about a story’s contents and quotation marks should not be used to dress up overstatement

The headline matches the story: the overstatement isn’t limited to the headline. I think quotation-mark abuse may be more specific to British papers.

So, overall, not as bad as some stories, but still seriously overstating both the size of the association and the evidence that it is causal