The main objective of this study is to compare the interpretation of health news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies with or without spin (i.e., distortion of research results). The news items which reported those studies evaluating the treatment effect either in cell culture studies or animal studies, have high number of spin in the headline and text and received high online public attention will be selected. Spin will be deleted and will rewrite the news items without spin. This sample of news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies with and without spin will be interpreted by French-speaking patients.
Health news is an important way to communicate updated medical research to the public. News items reporting the results of medical research attract a large audience. However, the quality of reporting in health news is questionable. The merits of a wide range of treatments and tests are overplayed and harms are underplayed. Several studies have shown the presence of spin (i.e., distorted presentation of study results) in health news. Distorted facts can be misleading and can affect the behaviour of physicians, healthcare providers and patients. However, little research has assessed whether spin can affect readers' interpretation of health news items. Objective: To compare the interpretation of health news items reported with or without spin. News items reporting pre-clinical studies evaluating the effect of a pharmacological treatment that received high online public attention will be focused. "Spin" is defined as a misrepresentation of study results whatever the motive (intentionally or unintentionally) to highlight that the beneficial effect of the intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. Hypothesis: The hypothesis of this study is that the spin can influence the reader's interpretation of health news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies. Design: A randomized controlled trial 1. Interventions: Health news items reporting results of pre-clinical studies with and without spin will be compared. A sample of health news items reporting the results of pre-clinical studies evaluating the effect of pharmacologic treatment and containing spin in the headline and text will be selected. Spin will be deleted in the selected news items and will be rewritten the news without spin. 2. Participants: The participants will include French-speaking patients from COMPARE: French patient community. 3. Sample size: For this RCT, the sample size will be 300 participants. 4. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome will be participants' interpretation of the benefit of treatment after reading the news (What do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]). The primary outcome of our study is the perception of the benficial effect of treatment and involve human particpants who are patients. Previous studies have demonstrated that the perception of safety and beneficial effects of treatment in preclinical studies will have an impact on the future development of the drug, and then the possible use of the drug for patients. Therefore our primary outcome could be considered as a surrogate marker of health outcome. 5. This study is approved by ethics review regulations by INSERM (CEEI-IRB): IRB00003888
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
OTHER
Masking
SINGLE
Interpretation of news items with spin
Interpretation of news items without spin
Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Paris, Île-de-France Region, France
Perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X. We ask participants, What do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients?
The primary outcome of our study is the perception of the benficial effect of treatment and involve human particpants who are patients. Previous studies have demonstrated that the perception of safety and beneficial effects of treatment in preclinical studies will have an impact on the future development of the drug, and then the possible use of the drug for patients. Therefore our primary outcome could be considered as a surrogate marker of health outcome. Moreover, this study is approved by ethics review regulations by INSERM (CEEI-IRB): IRB00003888 With the choice of answers on a 10 points Likert scale (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10\[very likely\])
Time frame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
Perception of efficacy, safety, availability and clinical utility in existing clinical practice for the treatment X. We will ask the participants: What do you think is the size of the potential benefit for patients?
With the choice of answers on a 5 points scale (none, small, moderate, large); analysis: none, small vs moderate or large
Time frame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
How safe do you think that treatment X would be for patients?
With the choice of answers on a 10 points Likert scale (scale, 0 \[very unsafe\] to 10\[very safe\])
Time frame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
Do you think this treatment should be offered to patients in the short term?
With the choice of answers on a 10 points Likert scale (scale, 0 \[absolutely no\] to 10\[absolutely yes
Time frame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Do you think this treatment will make a difference in the existing clinical practice?
With the choice of answers on a 10 points Likert scale (scale, 0 \[absolutely no\] to 10\[absolutely yes\])
Time frame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours