背景:未经证实的COVID-19疗法的政治化和错误信息或虚假信息导致了向公众展示科学的沟通挑战,尤其是在公众恐惧和不确定的时候。
目的:本研究旨在研究美国新闻中对3种未经证实的COVID-19疗法如何描述科学证据和不确定性,在开发经过验证的疗法和疫苗之前。
方法:我们在2020年初对未经证实的COVID-19疗法进行了媒体分析。总共479次讨论了未经证实的COVID-19疗法(羟氯喹,remdesivir,和恢复期血浆)在2020年1月1日至2020年7月30日的传统和在线美国新闻报道中,对主题进行了系统分析,科学证据,证据细节和限制,安全,功效,和权威的来源。
结果:大多数讨论包括科学证据(n=322,67%),尽管其中只有24%(n=116)提到了出版物。“政府”是remdesivir安全性和有效性声明的最常被命名的权威来源(n=43,35%),而“专家”声明则主要用于恢复期血浆(n=22,38%)。大多数关于羟氯喹的索赔(n=236,79%)是由一位知名人士提供的,其中97%(n=230)来自美国前总统特朗普。尽管有科学证据,许多关于安全性和有效性的声明是由非专家提出的.在讨论未经证实的COVID-19疗法时,很少有新闻报道表示科学上的不确定性,因为新闻报道中很少包含证据的局限性(n=125,26%),很少出现在标题(n=2,2%)或前导段落(n=9,9%;P<.001)中。
结论:这些结果突出表明,尽管新闻报道中对科学证据的讨论相对频繁,科学不确定性很少被报道,很少出现在突出的标题和导语段落中。
BACKGROUND: Politicization and misinformation or disinformation of unproven COVID-19 therapies have resulted in communication challenges in presenting science to the public, especially in times of heightened public trepidation and uncertainty.
OBJECTIVE: This study aims to examine how scientific evidence and uncertainty were portrayed in US
news on 3 unproven COVID-19 therapeutics, prior to the development of proven therapeutics and vaccines.
METHODS: We conducted a media analysis of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics in early 2020. A total of 479 discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics (hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and convalescent plasma) in traditional and online US
news reports from January 1, 2020, to July 30, 2020, were systematically analyzed for theme, scientific evidence, evidence details and limitations, safety, efficacy, and sources of authority.
RESULTS: The majority of discussions included scientific evidence (n=322, 67%) although only 24% (n=116) of them mentioned publications. \"Government\" was the most frequently named source of authority for safety and efficacy claims on remdesivir (n=43, 35%) while \"expert\" claims were mostly mentioned for convalescent plasma (n=22, 38%). Most claims on hydroxychloroquine (n=236, 79%) were offered by a \"prominent person,\" of which 97% (n=230) were from former US President Trump. Despite the inclusion of scientific evidence, many claims of the safety and efficacy were made by nonexperts. Few
news reports expressed scientific uncertainty in discussions of unproven COVID-19 therapeutics as limitations of evidence were infrequently included in the body of
news reports (n=125, 26%) and rarely found in headlines (n=2, 2%) or lead paragraphs (n=9, 9%; P<.001).
CONCLUSIONS: These results highlight that while scientific evidence is discussed relatively frequently in
news reports, scientific uncertainty is infrequently reported and rarely found in prominent headlines and lead paragraphs.