The main objective of this study is to compare the interpretation of health news items reporting results of phase I/II (non-randomized) trials with or without spin (i.e., distortion of research results). The news items which reported studies evaluating the treatment effect on human health, 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 phase I/II (non-randomized) trials with and without spin will be interpreted by French-speaking population.
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: "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. To compare the interpretation of health news items reporting phase I/II (non-randomized) trials with or without spin. News items evaluating the effect of a pharmacological treatment that received high online public attention will be focused. Hypothesis: The hypothesis of this study is that the spin can influence the reader's interpretation of health news items reporting results of phase I/II (non-randomized) trials. Design: A randomized controlled trial 1. Interventions: Health news items reporting results of phase I/II (non-randomized) studies with and without spin will be compared. A sample of health news items reporting the results of phase I/II (non-randomized) studies evaluating the effect of pharmacologic treatment and containing highest number of 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 population from an e-cohort Nutrinet santé. 3. Sample size: For this RCT, the sample size will be 300 participants. 4. The primary outcome will be perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X. We will ask participants, what do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]). Perception of safety and beneficial effects of treatment in clinical studies is considered as a surrogate marker of health outcome as it may have an impact on the future development of the drug, and the potential use of the drug for patients. 5. Expected results: This study will evaluate the impact of spin on the interpretation of news items reporting results of phase I/II (non-randomized) studies by French-speaking population. 6. 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 will ask participants, what do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? With the choices of answers on a 10 point 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 of the treatment X in existing clinical practice
We will ask participants, what do you think is the size of the potential benefit for patients? With the choices of answers on a 5 point scale (scale, \[none, small, moderate or large\]); 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 choices of answers on a 10 point 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 choices of answers on a 10 point 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
Do you think this treatment will make a difference in the existing clinical practice?
With the choices of answers on a 10 point 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.