RESEARCH REFLECTION 2

What is the problem?

The concern is that the newspaper article from HealthDay could be being used as a
credible source that could be influencing Bruce’s final decision on whether or not to try the
pulsed radiofrequency treatment.
What information do I need to gather/understand to better appreciate the scope and
impact of the concern?
Locating the original article “Pulsed Radiofrequency Relieves Acute Back Pain and
Sciatica” by the Radiological Society of North America1 via the appropriate literature search
will help enlighten me as to what information out of the original article, the newspaper chose
to represent. The basic functions of a newspaper is to spread information that will create
awareness amongst the general public regarding health-related issues, thereby allowing them
to decide on what is good and bad for them. However, the media has a unique ability to shape
the public’s opinion on health-related issues by emphasising certain positive features in their
coverage, such as favourable treatments for debilitating diseases and conditions, and miracle
pain-relieving treatments. This can lead to a layperson bias and perception of what is the right
treatment for them as well as giving them a sense of false hope and exposure to potentially
expensive and futile therapies. A research study undertaken by McCaw et al.2 highlights this
point that newspapers tend to emphasise the benefits while understating the risks when
reporting certain health information.
How can I critically evaluate the information as it relates to the central concern?
Evidence-based practice recommends that I critique the information by using
evaluating tools such as critical appraisal tools that assess the study on its reliability, validity,
accuracy, authenticity, timeliness, point of view or bias to conclude whether or not the article
is a relevant and reliable source of information to use as a foundation for my research and
outcome.
However, since the original article is not a scientific study, the next best option is to
compare and contrast the newspapers take on the original article, which will allow me to
decipher whether or not these claims are portraying all the pros and cons and conflicts of
interest associated with the treatment. Since newspaper articles are not subject to such rigour
as a journal article, results can sometimes be opinions of the author that may not necessarily
be supported by the scientific literature. These types of articles can nearly be used as a sales
pitch by newspapers, to target the symptomatic individuals using specific slogans like “full
recovery” and “one treatment”. This very specific use of terminology has the potential to
influence public health behaviours and can create unreal patient expectations. Whereas, the
 RESEARCH REFLECTION 2

original study will typically present the scientific information using the correct
communication protocol, to provide the reader with valuable access to all the information no
matter how good or bad the outcome.
Upon reflection, what concerns may become an impediment to the implementation of
this new synthesis, and how may this be communicated in a patient-centred setting?
Whilst acknowledging the newspaper column does mention the research is yet to be
peer-reviewed and published, my main concern is that that the majority of the general public
may not have an understanding of what this means. Therefore, establishing a patient
understanding of the criteria, a scholarly, peer-reviewed article has to meet to be published,
compared to a newspaper is important. This can be highlighted by the fact that peer-reviewed
articles contain original research. In contrast, newspaper articles may refer to research studies
but cherry-pick positive outcomes from original information while neglecting to inform of
the potential negatives, thereby projecting false certainty where it does not exist. Bringing
this information to light for my patient can help him gain an understanding of the importance
of digging deeper when something sounds too good to be true in regards to potential
healthcare therapies.
How can I apply this new synthesis research in an ideal patient-centred approach?
Many patients in pain have very straightforward questions they need to be answered:
What are the benefits vs. risks involved in the proposed treatment? What will it cost me? By
not addressing these questions clearly (or making it clear if the answers are unknown) does
readers a disservice. Therefore, by taking the time to explain how the information missing
from the newspaper could impact the outcome will help reassure my patient that I have his
best health interests at heart, all whilst taking care not to give him a false sense of hope of a
miracle cure.
Can I summarise the newly relevant issues?
Physicians are encouraged to find the highest level of evidence to answer clinical
questions. By having an appreciation of the hierarchical system used to classify levels of
evidence is an important component to disclose when forming an argument on why he
shouldn’t trust this report. I think by explaining the differences between the newspaper
version of the article and the original will eliminate the risk of personal bias and should help
him gain an understanding that the claims about pulsed radiofrequency for back pain and
sciatica are premature.
 RESEARCH REFLECTION 2

References:
1. Radiological Society of North America. Pulsed radiofrequency relieves acute back
pain and sciatica. Radiological Society of North America [Internet]. 2018 Nov [cited
2020 July 24]. Available
from:https://press.rsna.org/timssnet/media/pressreleases/14_pr_target.cfm?ID=2045

2. McCaw B, McGlade K, McElnay J. Online health information – what the newspapers

tell their readers: a systematic content analysis. BMC Public Health [Internet]. 2014
Feb [cited 2020 July 24];14(1). Available from: doi:10.1186/1471-2458-14-1316