An analysis of news media coverage of complementary and alternative medicine

• Published in: PloS one 2008-06, Vol.3 (6), p.e2406-e2406
• Main Authors: Bonevski, Billie, Wilson, Amanda, Henry, David A
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Adequacy; Alternative medicine; Analysis; Behavior modification; Breast cancer; Cancer; Cancer therapies; Children; Chinese medicine; Complementary Therapies; Diagnostic tests; Drugs; Genetic research; Health aspects; Herbal medicine; Journalism; Mass Media; Media coverage; Medical equipment; Medicine; Mental health; Mind body medicine; News media; Public Health and Epidemiology/Social and Behavioral Determinants of Health; Quality; Scoring; Significance; Spinal manipulation; Statistical analysis; Statistical significance; Studies; Treatment Outcome
• ISSN: 1932-6203; 1932-6203
• DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0002406

To examine the accuracy and adequacy of lay media news stories about complementary and alternative medicines and therapies. A descriptive analysis of news stories about complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the Australian media using a national medical news monitoring website, mediadoctor.org.au. Each story was rated against 10 criteria by two individuals. Consensus scores of 222 news articles reporting therapeutic claims about complementary medicines posted on mediadoctor.org.au between 1 January 2004 and 1 September 2007 were calculated. The overall rating score for 222 CAM articles was 50% (95% CI 47% to 53%). There was a statistically significant (F = 3.68, p = 0.006) difference in cumulative mean scores according to type of therapy: biologically based practices (54%, 95% CI 50% to 58%); manipulative body based practices (46%, 95% CI 39% to 54%), whole medical systems (45%, 95% CI 32% to 58%), mind body medicine (41%, 95% CI 31% to 50%) and energy medicine (33%, 95% CI 11% to 55%). There was a statistically significant difference in cumulative mean scores (F = 3.72, p = 0.0001) according to the clinical outcome of interest with stories about cancer treatments (62%, 95% CI 54% to 70%) scoring highest and stories about treatments for children's behavioural and mental health concerns scoring lowest (31%, 95% CI 19% to 43%). Significant differences were also found in scores between media outlets. There is substantial variability in news reporting practices about CAM. Overall, although they may be improving, the scores remain generally low. It appears that much of the information the public receives about CAM is inaccurate or incomplete.