The Latest From a Persistent Campaign to Increase the Accuracy and Usefulness of Health News Reporting

Here at AJN we’ve always been inspired by the work of Gary Schwitzer, whose Web site Health News Review has grown increasingly influential in its role as a watchdog of the accuracy of health news reporting. Schwitzer has recently been blogging from the “Selling Sickness” conference in Amsterdam. Below is a short video interview he shot with the Australian physician Dr. Peter Mansfield, who runs an organization called Healthy Skepticism—and who compares “industry-occupied medicine” to a communist state in its power to control information and drown out dissenting voices. Whether you’re a journalist, a provider, or a potential patient, Schwitzer’s ongoing analysis of health care news provides a model for understanding and filtering the flood of information we get about medications, testing, and various conditions.—JM, senior editor/blog editor

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MZ_ER2xSzG0]

Bookmark and Share

Nurses Under the Influence of Pharma—Not Just an NP Problem

The danger of an NP succumbing to influence is obvious—she or he may prescribe for reasons (which may be on an unconscious level) other than clinical ones. The issues for nurses who do not prescribe medications are subtle and different. AJN's ethics columnist Doug Olsen did a two-part series exploring this last year—in January and February 2009. And AJN's editor-in-chief emeritus Diana Mason wrote on this even earlier, in an editorial in December 2000, noting, among other concerns, that "it's not unusual to see drug company underwriting of speakers at nursing conferences; of course, the topic addressed is almost always related to one of the company's top drugs."

What Do Medical Researchers and Legislators Have in Common? Conflict of Interest, for One

By Shawn Kennedy, MA, RN, AJN interim editor-in-chief

LiebermanProtestIn a not-so-old blog post I did last month, I reported on a conference I attended in Vancouver.  There, editors from JAMA presented a study revealing that ghostwriting was a major problem for the leading medical journals. Articles were being drafted by writers other than the researchers. In some cases, the writers didn’t have access to all the data, which meant that analyses, conclusions, and—in some cases—recommendations for treatment were based on incomplete or misinterpreted findings.  As described in a New York Times article on the issue, medical product and pharmaceutical companies have much to gain if the safety and efficacy of their products are reported in a positive light.

Conflict of interest is a major concern whenever someone who stands to personally benefit can influence a decision. The National Institutes of Health, which is the leading medical and health research agency in this country, has imposed strict rules for employees limiting consulting and speaking fees involving outside companies and institutions that may have a stake in research outcomes. Most government agencies, research or not, impose rules to avoid conflicts of interest.

Last week, NBC News reported that protestors staged a sit-in at the Hartford, Connecticut, offices of Senator Joe Lieberman, demanding that he stop taking campaign contributions from insurance companies. 

Medical Research–You Get What You Pay For

But someone is paying for the production of the content on the Internet—if it’s not a reputable organization or journal, who is it? Is it unbiased? Is it evidence-based, and who vetted the evidence and the authors? Let the readers—and their patients—be wary of what they read online and ask themselves just who paid for it, and why.

Go to Top