...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Interactive Journal of Medical Research >Health Information Discrepancies Between Internet Media and Scientific Papers Reporting on Omega-3 Supplement Research: Comparative Analysis
【24h】

Health Information Discrepancies Between Internet Media and Scientific Papers Reporting on Omega-3 Supplement Research: Comparative Analysis

机译：网络媒体与Omega-3补充剂研究的科学论文报道之间的健康信息差异：比较分析

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background Dietary supplements are the most used complementary and alternative health modality in the United States, and omega-3 supplements continue to be the most popularly used nonvitamin or nonmineral supplements by adults. Users of dietary supplements report that they obtain health guidance from internet media resources, but there is question as to whether or not these resources provide the necessary evidence to guide health decisions. Current evidence suggests that there is a mistranslation occurring somewhere between researchers and the media. Objective The aim of this study was to conduct a comparative cross-sectional analysis to identify areas of discordance created when science is translated from the laboratory to Web-based news media. Methods A Google news search provided our convenience sample of 40 omega-3 supplement–based media reports stratified by the years 2009 to 2012. Media reports (n=17) were compared with the corresponding scientific papers for content. Report and scientific paper content were extracted using commonly accepted reporting guideline domains, and domains were then compared for detecting underlying omissions or mistranslations in reporting. Mean scores for all of the scientific papers and media reports were assessed for each domain. Results Scientific papers (n=14) generally maintained a mean close to complete for each reporting domain. The only domain where there was not a significant difference between media and scientific reporting match was within the objectives domain (χ21 = 0.8, P =.36). Media reports (n=17) more frequently reported potential caveats and warnings for consumers with a mean domain for caveat reporting of 0.88, with possible scores falling between 0 and 1. Conclusions There are inherent differences in the intended audience, structure, and goals in scientific and media communications. These differences should be explored further, and consumers should be made aware of them. Additional considerations for balanced reporting and reader accessibility are also necessary to take into account and are explored further in this analysis.
机译：背景技术膳食补充剂是美国最常用的补充和替代健康方式，而omega-3补充剂仍然是成年人最常用的非维生素或非矿物质补充剂。膳食补充剂的使用者报告说他们从互联网媒体资源获得了健康指导，但是对于这些资源是否提供指导健康决策的必要证据存在疑问。目前的证据表明，研究人员和媒体之间存在翻译错误。目的本研究的目的是进行比较性的横断面分析，以确定将科学从实验室翻译成基于Web的新闻媒体时所产生的不一致之处。方法Google的新闻搜索为我们提供了方便样本，该样本包含了2009年至2012年分层的40种基于omega-3补充剂的媒体报道。将媒体报道（n = 17）与相应的科学论文进行了内容比较。使用公认的报告准则域提取报告和科学论文的内容，然后将这些域进行比较以检测报告中潜在的遗漏或误译。对每个领域的所有科学论文和媒体报道的平均得分进行了评估。结果科学论文（n = 14）通常在每个报告领域均保持接近完成的均值。媒体和科学报告匹配之间没有显着差异的唯一领域是目标领域（χ21= 0.8，P = .36）。媒体报道（n = 17）更频繁地报告给消费者的潜在警告和警告，警告范围的平均范围为0.88，可能的得分介于0到1之间。结论结论目标受众，结构和目标存在内在差异科学和媒体传播。应进一步探讨这些差异，并应使消费者意识到它们。还需要考虑平衡报告和读者可访问性的其他注意事项，并且需要在此分析中进行进一步探讨。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号