Interesting review and good recommendations about communicating science [*see note from HIFA moderator below]
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(22)01898-0/fulltext
particularly insightful is the attention to use of language.
Misinformation, it appears, is not only limited to social media but also press releases by respected scientific institutions!
Goran Zangana
MBChB, MPH, MRCP (UK), MRCPE, PhD
Associate Research Fellow
Middle East Research Institute
Iraq country representative for HIFA
https://www.hifa.org/support/members/goran
Skype: gzangana
E mail: goran.zangana@meri-k.org
HIFA profile: Goran Zangana is a medical doctor and Associate Research Fellow with the Middle East Research Institute, Iraq. He is a HIFA country representative for Iraq and is currently based in the UK. He is the current holder of Country Representative of the Year 2021.
https://www.hifa.org/support/members/goran
goran.zangana@meri-k.org
[*Note from NPW, moderator: This Comment is restricted access. Here is the citation and some key points:
CITATION: The scientific communication ecosystem: the responsibility of investigators
Author links open overlay panelHowardBauchnerabFrederick PRivaraab
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(22)01898-0Get rights and content
Guidance exists for how members of the media should communicate science, but few guides are available for researchers...
Most investigators want the results of their studies to be communicated accurately, but they too have their biases... some researchers believe that their work will be more influential than is probably the case.
First, investigators should choose their words carefully... Some investigators also spin the results of their studies, emphasising secondary outcomes, underpowered or non-preplanned subgroup analyses or de-emphasising the results that did not support their hypotheses.6 Such tactics undermine the validity of the scientific process and can mislead the public and harm patients.
Second, investigators should review press releases from their institution, funder, and the publishing journal. A study that analysed 462 press releases (and their associated peer-reviewed manuscript) from 20 leading UK universities found that 40% of the press releases contained exaggerated advice and 33% causal claims...
Third, when investigators present the results of their studies at meetings, or in other venues, they should use language similar to that used in the article if it has already been published or is in preparation...
Fourth, relative differences between groups in a study can differ from absolute differences. Investigators should provide both... Not presenting the NNT exaggerates the success of a study.
Fifth, studies have limitations. Yet the limitations often do not appear in media reports or even in the scientific paper...
COMMENT (NPW): I suspect most researchers would be able to list the points above, and many more. The problem is that many apparently do not keep these points in mnind when communicating theikr health research. As we have discussed, some are driven by motivations such as 'making an impact' that can undermine their ability to provide unbiased contributions to the knowledge base. This paper also repeats our observation about the lack of guidance for researchers. We all continue to be unaware of such guidance.]
