You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT JAMA
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 287 No. 23, June 19, 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  JAMA
  •  Online Features
  Medicine and the Media
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (25)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in JAMA
 Topic Collections
 •Oncology
 •Breast Cancer
 •Radiologic Imaging
 •Women's Health
 •Women's Health, Other
 •Mammography
 •Humanities
 •Medicine and the Media
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

News Media Coverage of Screening Mammography for Women in Their 40s and Tamoxifen for Primary Prevention of Breast Cancer

Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS; Steven Woloshin, MD, MS

JAMA. 2002;287:3136-3142.

Context  In the late 1990s, 3 events pertaining to breast cancer prevention received considerable attention in the US news media: a National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus panel recommended against routine screening mammography for women in their 40s (January 1997), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) subsequently reversed the recommendation (March 1997), and an NCI-sponsored study demonstrated the efficacy of tamoxifen in the primary prevention of breast cancer (April 1998).

Objective  To examine how the major US news media covered the potential benefits and harms of 2 breast cancer preventive strategies.

Design and Setting  Content analysis of US news stories reporting on the breast cancer prevention events. We used Lexis-Nexis to search for print news stories in the 10 highest-circulation US newspapers and requested transcripts from 3 major television networks to obtain all relevant news coverage in the 2 weeks following each event.

Main Outcome Measures  Attitude toward preventive strategy (encourage, neutral, discourage); level of uncertainty about benefit and how benefits and harms were presented.

Results  Twenty-seven stories about the NIH consensus panel, 24 about the NCI reversal, and 34 about tamoxifen appeared in high-profile news media within 2 weeks of each event. Sixty-seven percent of NIH consensus panel stories left the impression that there was a lot of uncertainty about whether women aged 40 to 49 years should undergo screening, but 59% suggested that women should probably or definitely be screened. Only 4 stories suggested that women faced a genuine decision about what to do. The level of uncertainty reported was substantially lower following the NCI reversal (21% suggested a lot of uncertainty), and most stories (96%) suggested that women should be screened. In contrast, tamoxifen stories highlighted uncertainty about what women at high risk should do (62% suggested there was a lot of uncertainty), and none left the impression that women should definitely take the drug (24% suggested they probably should). Sixty-five percent of these stories suggested that women faced a genuine choice and would have to weigh the risks and benefits themselves.

Conclusions  Most news stories favored routine use of screening mammography and urged caution about using tamoxifen. Almost all noted the potential harms of each preventive strategy; however, the negative aspects of tamoxifen received greater emphasis. Whereas taking tamoxifen was presented as a difficult decision, having a mammogram was presented as something women ought to do.


Author Affiliations: VA Outcomes Group, White River Junction, Vt; the Center for the Evaluative Clinical Sciences, Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, NH; and the Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, NH.



Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Malpractice and Breast Cancer: Perceptions Versus Reality
Berlin
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2009;192:334-336.
FULL TEXT  

Prevention and screening efficacy messages in newspaper accounts of cancer
Moriarty and Stryker
Health Educ Res 2008;23:487-498.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Media Coverage of the Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccine and Autism Controversy and Its Relationship to MMR Immunization Rates in the United States
Smith et al.
Pediatrics 2008;121:e836-e843.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Commentary: Lung Cancer Screening--Progress or Peril
Mulshine
The Oncologist 2008;13:435-438.
FULL TEXT  

Participation in mammography screening
Schwartz and Woloshin
BMJ 2007;335:731-732.
FULL TEXT  

Perceived Ambiguity about Screening Mammography Recommendations: Association with Future Mammography Uptake and Perceptions
Han et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2007;16:458-466.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Can Health Journalists Bridge the State-of-the-Science Gap in Mammography Guidelines?
Chew et al.
Science Communication 2006;27:331-351.
ABSTRACT  

Breast Cancer Risk Reduction Options: Awareness, Discussion, and Use among Women from Four Ethnic Groups
Kaplan et al.
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:162-166.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Breast Cancer, Mammography, and Malpractice Litigation: The Controversies Continue
Berlin
Am. J. Roentgenol. 2003;180:1229-1237.
FULL TEXT  

Press: Mixed messages on breast cancer
Hopkins Tanne
BMJ 2002;324:1530-1530.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2002 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.