The United Nations Foundation kicked off its Shot@Life campaign at the Georgia Aquarium today to help raise awareness and funds for childhood immunizations in the developing world.
According to the UN Foundation, one child dies every 20 seconds from a vaccine-preventable disease, such as measles, pneumonia, diarrhea and polio. That’s because one in five children lack access to these basic childhood immunizations.
One of the panelists at the launch was former First Lady Rosalynn Carter, who called upon the American people for their voice, time and support.
With former First Lady Rosalynn Carter in Atlanta
“We’ve come so far in eliminating deadly and disabling diseases with partnerships like ours and ‘Shot at Life,’” Carter said. “We’ll be able to spread the word that vaccines can save lives, and in so, doing we can help eliminate preventable deaths.”
Other panelists included UN Foundation CEO Kathy Calvin, UN Ambassador Andrew Young, Dr. Anne Schuchat of the CDC, and Australian photographer Anne Geddes.
Geddes commented that every child deserves “a shot at the tooth fairy.” Carter said that she would like to see “a shot at ending mental health stigma.”
I caught up with Ms. Carter after the launch, who talked to me for a few minutes regarding The Carter Center‘s mental health program and its efforts in Liberia. As she seems to be especially passionate about this subject, she encouraged me to look into her fellowship for mental health journalism.
“More meaningful reporting needs to be done on this important topic,” Carter told me.
I am in Atlanta, Georgia, as a part of the National Press Foundation‘s Global Vaccines Press Fellowship. I was joined by 9 other reporters from various news organizations to learn about vaccine-preventable diseases and global outbreaks.
Tonight was mostly focused on polio eradication and measles initiative efforts. We heard from the Dr. Jacob Kumaresan from the World Health Organization and Dr. Rebecca Martin from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
I am especially interested in the measles vaccine and its surrounding controversies, as I will be researching this issue in Berlin this fall.
Here are some newsworthy facts, according to Dr. Rebecca Martin and the CDC :
- Measles is the leading cause of vaccine-preventable childhood mortality.
- Measles resurgence in Europe : France saw 15,076 cases of measles in 2011, followed by Italy with 5,090 cases. Germany saw 1,480 cases. The 2011 grand total for measles cases in Europe = 32,154 cases.
- Fifteen cases of measles were reported to the CDC following the 2012 Indianapolis Superbowl. These cases were all traced back to a single case in the stadium.
- Investigating measles outbreaks can be expensive : Investigating 34 cases and over 500 exposures in a community setting cost $167,685. In a hospital setting, the numbers are higher – investigating 14 cases and 8,231 exposures cost $799,136.
- Despite declaring “measles elimination” in 2002, the US saw an incidence of 222 cases in 2011 – over a 300 percent increase from 2010.
The Measles & Rubella Initiative set a goal to reduce global measles deaths by at least 95 percent by 2015, compared with 2000 levels. Millennium Development Goal 4 also aims to reduce under-five mortality rate by two-thirds between 1999 and 2015.
Despite increasing measles incidence rates in many countries worldwide, are these attainable goals? Thoughts?
For those suffering from inner-ear damage, a new device called Esteem is out on the market. A surgeon implants the prosthetic inner-ear stimulator during a three-hour outpatient procedure, with the patient under general anesthesia.
According to the article, it seems that the implant procedure and device have no side effects.
I was first reviewer for this HNR review. The Chicago Tribune ran the story.
Not a good example of reporting on new technologies: one glowing patient anecdote – same profiled in a news release. No data provided.
Our Review Summary
No discussion of costs, or of outcomes data (benefits or harms). Only one positive patient anecdote with no explanation of whether her result was representative of what’s been seen in any other patients. There was no independent perspective provided.
Why This Matters
The story illustrates the difficulty in reporting on a new device and new implant procedure that has not become a mainstream practice. Much scientific data may not yet have been published. If this were the case, the story could have explicitly stated so and alerted the reader on the lack of data currently available. [HealthNewsReview.org]
♚
You can see the full reviews on my site at Journalism -> Review and also at HealthNewsReview.org.
A debate is brewing in the physician community : Should all pregnant women should be screened for thyroid function? And should women with milder cases of hypothyroidism be diagnosed and treated?
The problem is that there is little evidence regarding the effectiveness of treatment for milder cases. Scientists are unsure whether diagnoses and subsequent treatment sufficiently help pregnant patients or, instead, waste money on blood testing and thyroid medication.
I was first reviewer for a HNR review on a recent Quest Diagnostics study that looked at records and surveys from half a million pregnant women. The AP ran the story.
Overall, the story does an excellent job weighing the pros and cons of thyroid screening and treatment in pregnant women.
Our Review Summary
The article gives extensive context to the recent Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism study and refers to other research done in the field.
Why This Matters
The article effectively breaks down and explains a complex debate in the physician community – whether all pregnant women should be screened for thyroid function and whether women with milder cases of hypothyroidism should be diagnosed and treated. The story says this will “add pressure” for science to settle this issue, but that pressure already exists from endocrinologists and obstetricians – with, as the study shows, about 1 in 5 pregnant women being tested from 2005-8. [HealthNewsReview.org]
♚
You can see the full reviews on my site at Journalism -> Review and also at HealthNewsReview.org.
Wishing everyone a warm holiday season, and a happy, healthy and successful New Year. Here’s to 2012!
The Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA) announced their fellowship winners this month. I found out I won the Jacque Minnotte Health Reporting Fellowship for my multimedia package on HIV vaccines. The prize recognizes excellence in health or medical television and radio reporting.
Here is the official press release, as well as the other award winners.
It looks like I will be at the RTDNA/SPJ 2012 conference in Fort Lauderdale. Anyone else also going?
Apparently, eating fish may be good for brain health.
I was the second reviewer for two HNR reviews looking at a recent study presented Wednesday at the Radiological Society of North America in Chicago. Researchers looked at the correlation between 3-D MRIs and gray matter in the brain. Here are two competing reports from HealthDay and WebMD :
Another confusing story about an observational study that fails to explicitly state and explain to readers the limitations of observational studies. Please read our primer on this topic. It would help prevent these mistakes.
Our Review Summary
Readers heads must be spinning worse than Linda Blair’s in “The Exorcist” when they read – in one story – that this “must be viewed as an association, rather than a cause-and-effect” – yet they get cause-and-effect language such as:
- “Raji said he was ‘amazed’ that this effect was seen”
- “may boost brain health”…”lower the risk”…”helps to preserve gray matter neurons, strengthening them”…”cranial benefit”
Why This Matters
Over and over again, many news stories confuse readers about observational studies. It leads to a loss of confidence in science and a loss of credibility in journalism. That’s why this matters. [HealthNewsReview.org]
Slightly better story than the competing HealthDay story on the same study. Still weak on explaining the limitations of observational studies.
Our Review Summary
The story allows the researcher to say, “More fish, more brain, less Alzheimer’s.” Pithy. Quotable. But simplistic and not proven by this study.
Why This Matters
At least the competing HealthDay story interviewed an independent source who wondered about other possible confounding factors in the research and stated, “For now, the connection must be viewed as an association, rather than a cause-and-effect.”
So even though the WebMD story scored better, the HealthDay story did slightly better on this critical piece of analysis. (The HealthDay story had its own flaws – for example, burying that “association” line instead of placing it high in the story and overwhelming it with cause-and-effect language throughout the story.) [HealthNewsReview.org]
♚
You can see the full reviews on my site at Journalism -> Review and also at HealthNewsReview.org.
Back in September, I won the Florida Public Health Association’s “Outstanding Reporter Award” for my Medical Monday series for Florida Public Radio.
I recently received the plaque and took this picture for the FPHA’s website and newsletter.
What an honor!
From now, you can find all my full-length health news reviews under my Journalism -> Review tab. I will post only my main comments on my home page.
I was again first reviewer for a HealthDay story on Huntington’s disease, which covers a phase III drug study that was recently published in The Lancet Neurology.
- The main problem in the story was its contradictory statements regarding the drug’s benefits. The article stated that a higher dose of pridopidine showed a “significant benefit,” but how significant? Later in the story, an independent source commented that the “benefit is modest.”
- The story did not mention anything about the researchers’ inability to meet their primary endpoint. The apparent benefits of the drug were found in the tertiary endpoint – a sign that the magnitude of the drug’s effects may be smaller.
- The article did not detail any research methods from the study. For example, how did researchers measure improvements in motor function?
Why This Matters:
The story highlights the difficulty in deciphering ambiguous medical evidence for the general public. On one hand, the researchers were not able to prove their main hypothesis. But they uncovered benefits in another endpoint that may prove to be promising. The article could have differentiated this evidence and provide a more cautious interpretation of the study’s findings, which could have made for a more thorough and more accurate story. [HealthNewsReview.org]
