The day the media circus came to town

Posted by Jean Adams

Is it more scary when Monty Don slags off your research on Twitter, or when a professor who you respect a lot asks you nicely to be a bit more careful with your not-quite-what-it-was-designed-for use of his carefully developed tool (also on Twitter)? How about both on one day?

What seems like a long time ago now, an MSc student emailed to ask if I’d be interested in chatting about an idea he had for a dissertation project.

His idea was simple: compare the nutritional quality of ready meals to celebrity chef meals. I don’t think the student (now graduate) in question would mind me saying that he’s not unfamiliar with a ready meal, or currently maintaining his weight within the recommended BMI range. Slightly fed up with being told his ready meal habit was bad for him, he was interested in finding out just how bad and whether it was any worse than the alternative that seemed to be in his face whenever he was eating his ready meals – something served up by Nigella, Jamie or Hugh.

In contrast, I and my co-supervisor were backing the celeb chefs. I don’t think I’ve ever eaten a ready meal, and it is possible that I have an affinity for glossy recipe books that has resulted in a collection that outgrew the kitchen bookcase some time ago. Scientists are neutral (not). We might be able to collect and analyse the data objectively, but it was clear what results each member of the research team was hoping to find.

The project was perfect for an MSc dissertation: clear research question, data collection primarily via the web, fairly straightforward analysis, no ethics permission required. We joked in supervision that the BMJ would love it.

And so it came to pass that the student collected and analysed his data, perhaps stretched the use of front of pack labelling for a good gimmicky visual a bit too far, got a good mark, and toddled off back to his real job promising to send us a draft of a paper sometime. Often those manuscripts never materialise. But lo! This one did. I wasn’t absolutely convinced that the BMJ really would love it, but we’d said they would and it seemed a shame not to try. They say ‘no’ pretty quickly.

I was mildly offended when the BMJ’s response to our rather serious and important piece of work was that it was “quirky” enough for their Christmas edition. Sure it was fun and sure I wasn’t quite convinced that it was good enough piece of work to be considered normal BMJ material. But there is a serious point here: lots of public health advice suggests that people should cook from scratch and implies this is better for you than eating ready meals. If you don’t know how to cook from scratch, then it isn’t a wild assumption to suggest that you might learn from the most prominent cooks around – celebrity TV chefs. A nutritional comparison of the two doesn’t seem outrageous.

Presumably you know what our findings were? We found that, on a number of nutritional metrics, ready meals did better than celebrity chef meals, but neither of them did very well. The ready meals were less unhealthy than the celeb chef meals, but it would probably not be right to say the ready meals were healthier than the celeb chef meals.

I knew what was going to happen. I didn’t have any idea how to stop it happening. Perhaps there was none.

The BMJ went to town promoting our paper. The media loved it. We got on the Today programme headlines, the paper was covered by loads of newspapers and not just in the UK, all three of us spent most of publication day doing interviews with just about everyone and their dog. But however much we tried, it was very difficult to get the message across that neither group of meals were particularly good for you – we were definitely not saying that ready meals are the way to go. But that’s the message that everyone seemed to hear.

Ho hum. What can you do? The media circus would move on. No-one would remember. And presumably any colleagues who would, might take the time to read the paper (or at least the abstract), and not just go on what was in the newspapers?

I can understand why people went for the “ready meals healthier than celeb chefs” headline and why that then prompted all the various responses it did. But I was most bothered by Monty Don’s response. And not just because I’ve always thought he seemed like a nice, and thoughtful, guy.

Do lots of people think scientists should only do, and publish, studies that come up with the ‘right’ results? That we should make sure the measures we use are designed to come up with those ‘right’ results? What about Ben Goldacre and the All Trials campaign for open data and publication of all trial results – not just positive ones? How does that match with this attitude? Or maybe I’m assuming that Monty is more representative of ‘the public’ than he really is.

Doing something about inequalities in health

Posted by Jean Adams

I was at a meeting in Edinburgh at the end of last year on inequalities in health. It was one of those events full of eminent (and emeritus) professors where I felt slightly out of my intellectual depth. I didn't trust myself to say much. But I tried to listen well.

We need to pro-actively engage with the media - like CJ Cregg did everyday

One of the things about health inequalities is that we all sort of know what the solution is. When I told my dad I was going to do a PhD on why poorer people tend to die younger than richer people, he said "well isn't it just because they don't have as much money?". This confused me. What I was interested in was the physiology - how does poverty "get under the skin?". I don't think the money thing had even crossed my mind.

Now, ten years later, I increasingly agree with my dad. Who cares about the physiology? Sure we could know more about the detailed biological processes going on, but what difference would it make to what we might do about inequalities? The solution remains that to change health inequalities to any substantial extent, we have to change the social structure. Reduce income inequalities, redistribute wealth.

You don't need to be a professor to work that out.

The problem seems to be that we (who? the academic community?) think any sort of drastic wealth redistribution is unattainable, or maybe just too difficult to attain. So we think of other little things we might be able to do to alleviate the problem, rather than tackle the cause. You know, target cancer screening programmes better, that sort of thing.

What would it take to get wealth redistribution? Political will. What would it take to get political will? Public pressure. What would it take to get public pressure? Media agitation. Just like everything else.

One of the things that I was slightly surprised we ended up talking about in Edinburgh was engaging with the media. Sure, I like a bit of science communication. But it's not something that has come up in any of my previous conversations about health inequalities. In fact in previous discussions about science communication, the conversation has rather stopped dead whenever I’ve mentioned inequalities.

The phenomenon of inequalities in health is not inherently media friendly. There are no breakthroughs to report on. No big shiny gadgets to take pictures of. Poorer people get sicker more and die younger. As one participant at the Edinburgh meeting pointed out, if there's a report documenting the extent of inequalities it might get a bit of coverage, but it will be presented as if this is some big, new finding. The coverage won’t go much beyond the data to explore what the cause or solution might be. Then there will likely be a few years of editorial 'fatigue' when it feels like that story has been done recently. Once everyone's forgotten, a new report might spark more interest, but again the coverage will be superficial. And the cycle will repeat.

Other participants described instances of reporters looking for a human angle on inequalities stories traipsing off to the most deprived parts of Glasgow and asking the people they met there why their health was so rubbish.

Mainstream media coverage doesn’t have to be like this. But it will be unless those of us within the public health academic and practice communities interested in inequalities in health get a bit more media-savvy. We need to pro-actively generate informed media debate ourselves. One fairly easy approach is to pitch articles to online outlets such as Comment is Free and newspaper blogs that are desperate for informed and timely content on policy issues.

We also need to be ready to publicly comment on anything to do with inequalities even before we are asked. One researcher, very experienced in media work, described how they prepare written commentary on new reports and statements on inequalities issues the day before they are released. It is fairly easy to guess in advance what the content of any new report will be and so respond appropriately – with final tweaks made on the day once they’ve had a chance to read the details. By staying a step ahead of events, it is possible to guide journalists and debate away from simple reporting to more in-depth consideration of what could be done to alleviate the problem.

Which is obviously all rather more easily said than done. We are, after all, full-time researchers, not part-time journalists. But maybe we could hold each others’ hands a bit and take it step by step and see how it goes? It seems we might have much more to gain, than to lose, from trying.

So who wants in with me on a Comment is Free post on what we need to do about health inequalities in the UK today? Ready to be pitched to coincide with the next big report.

It's probably your mum's fault

Posted by Lynne Forrest 

I’ve just written a paper that I would like to get published in a high profile journal. Now I need to draft the cover letter explaining why they should publish. The rejection rate is high so I need to emphasise how brilliant and relevant my research is and the important implications my findings have for policy and practice.

The temptation is to exaggerate a bit. And it sometimes appears that the research with the most outlandish claims gets the most attention.

I have a general interest in epidemiology and health inequalities . Interesting new studies are flagged up every day on my twitter feed and in the mainstream media. I often read from a professional perspective, but it's hard not to also read these articles as me - wife, mother, Lynne. Although the usual culprits of alcohol, obesity and smoking all feature as things we should avoid if we want to live a long and healthy life, there appears to be a new risk factor in town. If you believe recent research then it seems that almost everything, from stupidity to earning potential, can be blamed on your mum.

Philip Larkin: This be the verse

Last week the Observer reported a study claiming that feeding babies on demand increases a child’s IQ. The implication is that if you were a regimented mother you may have reduced your child’s intellectual potential.

Yesterday I read that happy children are likely to earn more in the future, with a throwaway line at the end of the article suggesting how important it was that parents create an ‘emotionally healthy home environment’. 

However, my favourite finding from last week was non-mum-related. It was the study which concluded that eating chocolate makes you slim.

As someone who knows a bit about it, I am bamboozled by the endless amounts of contradictory research and advice that are presented in the media. So, I imagine that most other people are too. Although these are often epidemiological studies that examine trends at a population-level, it seems easy for everyone to forget this and to interpret the findings at an individual level. Just because people who eat more chocolate, overall, tend to be a little slimmer, doesn't mean that that bar of Dairy Milk I just scoffed is going to make me drop a jean size tomorrow. For me the result is an awful lot of parental guilt. And I should know better.

Perhaps some of the wilder conclusions have more to do with press releases and journalists then what the researchers themselves actually concluded. But still, shouldn't researchers have to take some responsibility for their work?

So now I am thinking that I need to be a bit more careful about overplaying the implications of my research. However much I want to ‘sell’ my paper to that high profile journal. 

From a mum’s point of view, it’s probably best to just accept that everything is my fault. At least I can eat as much chocolate as I like (that study is true, isn’t it?)

Would the real 'expert' please stand up

Posted by Amelia Lake

My advice to you is, be careful what you tweet. I discovered this to my cost as my eagle-eyed colleagues in Fuse spotted my frustration in 140 characters and persuaded me to write this post.

My tweet-anger or ‘twanger’, as I might coin for the urban dictionary, followed an interview on BBC Radio 4’s drive time news programme, PM. A ‘food’ author was being interviewed about the highly publicised Harvard study warning about the risks of red meat to health.



New research suggests red meat increases all-cause mortality



At the time, I was driving home from work and seriously considered pulling over on the motorway to tweet the PM programme right there and then.

I wanted to know why they did not have a Dietitian or a qualified nutritional expert on their programme, rather than an author who has just released a new book this month and appears to have no nutritional qualifications. A real expert might have at least provided a balanced view and reflected the current evidence around red meat and health. An author on the book tour trail appeared incapable.

Reader, I was very cross!

This was in contrast to the British Dietetic Association’s spokesperson on the BBC’s Today programme who gave an excellent summary of the study and made clear what the implications were for practice. Well done Ursula Arens.

The Department of Health recommends that people should limit their intake of red and processed meat to no more than 70 grams a day in cooked weight. The dietary advice to reduce red and processed meat in our diet is not new; this new study has re-enforced the message. For more information and practical suggestions see the World Cancer Research Fund web pages.

Please, please, please radio researchers (or researchers working in any media for that matter) when booking your ‘experts’ think carefully. As a Dietitian and Public Health Nutritionist I do not consider an individual who does not have any nutritional qualifications to be an adequate spokesperson on what constitutes a healthy diet.

Both the British Dietetic Association and The Nutrition Society have qualified nutritional experts who give up their time (without books to promote) to discuss new studies or diet related recommendations. Most media coverage on the study was by qualified experts, and this piece on PM really disappointed me.

I didn’t stop on the A19. I drove home safely (while muttering angrily to myself) and tweeted my frustrations to PM in the car outside my home. I was rallied by support from another Dietitian who’d also heard the piece. However, I’ve yet to get a response from PM!

On air...again

Posted by Jean Adams

Yesterday I got up at 0530 to speak to someone from Radio 5 Live for their breakfast programme. Then I made and ate my porridge and drove to the airport for the early flight to Bristol. I am so not a morning person. But my morning, day, week, month, year was totally made by hearing my research mentioned on the Today programme during the 0630 headlines. I nearly crashed the car.

 
About 18 months ago, I was asked for ideas for final year projects for Food & Human Nutrition students. I don’t remember now why I thought it would be interesting to look at price promotions on alcohol. But I did. I was given two students to do the project. Between them, they surveyed all the shops selling alcohol within 1500m of Newcastle’s Student Union, noting down all price promotions they saw on their rounds. The students split up the data and wrote up their dissertations.

When I put the all the data back together, it became clear that of more than 2000 promotions found, less than 2% led to alcohol being sold at less than cost price – the new minimum price that will be introduced in England in April. The implication is obvious – banning below cost sales of alcohol wont effect the cost of alcohol in the shops. The research was accepted for publication in Alcohol & Alcoholism.

I told the press office about the research because it felt policy relevant to me. I’m not sure they were desperately interested, but they agreed to press release it.

I ended up doing TV interviews for BBC Breakfast, Tyne Tees and Sky Tyne & Wear. As well as Radio 5, I did Sky Radio too. The research was mentioned without interviews on Radio 3 and 4 morning news. But by far the most adrenalin-surging was a live telephone interview with Winifred Robinson on Radio 4’s You & Yours.

It feels so unfair that the media loved my quickly done, undergraduate students projects paper, and dismissed my really important, publically funded evaluation of new regulations on TV food advertising that took years to produce.

Well...I am in Bristol for the third instalment (and final exam) of a Science Writing course. So I think this all has something to do with ‘news values’. Our work on alcohol promotions plays to the “continuity” and “consonance” news values – it builds on David Cameron’s statement last week that he was going to tackle the “scandal” of binge drinking, but it also allows well rehearsed arguments about minimum unit pricing to be dredged up again. All in all, it’s a nice little piece that journalists can easily relate to other ongoing public debates. Can you tell I’ve been revising?

So now I can diagnose the problem. But I still don’t know how to treat it and get the media to take note of stuff they just don’t want to.

On air

Posted by Jean Adams

I was on BBC Radio Newcastle this morning with Charlie and Alfie. We were talking about some new research that we’ve just published on the effects of regulations restricting TV junk food advertising to kids. It was kind of fun. Charlie and Alfie seem to just mess around a bit, link to the weather and traffic, and sometimes talk in a light hearted way about semi-serious subjects (is it bad that I’ve never listened to the local radio breakfast show before?).

Charlie & Alfie

Our research explored the nutritional content of food being advertised on UK TV before and after new regulations came in restricting advertising of less healthy foods during children’s programming. We found no difference in the amount of advertising for less healthy foods that kids were seeing following the regulations. But the regulations were widely adhered to. The explanation? Kids watch more than just children’s programmes.

The work has also been covered by BBC News Online, Sky Tyne and Wear, and some other places you’ll likely never have heard of.

I think the work is really, really important: regulations on TV food advertising are adhered to by broadcasters, but as they stand they have no effect on kids exposure to unhealthy food ads. Implication: extend the regulations to all TV and they will work. The study also draws attention to an, ineffective, government initiative that both Labour and the Coalition have been quite enthusiastic about.

I spent quite a lot of time working with the University Press Office on a press release. The press officers tried pretty hard to get a variety of journalists interested yesterday. Local radio and BBC online is so not good coverage. So why doesn’t anyone care about my baby research?

I haven’t quite worked out the answer to this yet. But I think there might be a variety of reasons. Firstly, the whole idea that adverts and marketing might alter our behaviour is pretty difficult – it rather challenges the idea of free-will. Next, even if food adverts do effect what our kids eat (they do), it’s probably only a small effect amongst many other (also small) effects. So it’s a difficult topic to get excited about. Also, I’m wondering if the ‘no effect’ message is just not that exciting – ‘kids seeing more junk food ads, despite regulations’ might have been a much more interesting line.

But what I’m starting to think more about, is that the problem might be related to how the media works. Our university press officers primarily work with biomedical scientists. They are used to targeting science journalists with releases. Is an analysis of the effect of food advertising rules science? Or is it maybe consumer studies, or some other sort of wishy-washy social science? Personally, I don’t really care what it is, and I’m happy to be a multi-disciplinary public health researcher. But if journalists at national daily outlets only cover their own beat, and there’s no beat for multi-disciplinary public health research/wishy-washy social science, I guess we’re screwed.