 |
 f you've
followed women's health news over the last couple of years, you've probably
heard or read about some interesting debates. There have been a variety of news
reports on such health issues as breast self-examination and female
sexual dysfunction. Some of this news has been alarming, contradicting previous
medical knowledge, and leaving women wondering where to go for answers.
But these issues can also inspire us to look at the news critically, and to
search for other sources of health information to better understand our own
needs and concerns.
How do we navigate through the news reports, and make sense of them?
When it comes to health news, we need to turn into research detectives.
Look beyond the 'hype' - check all sides are covered
Most health issues are quite complex, and may be surrounded by hype about "medical
breakthroughs". From a news report, it is often difficult to determine
what stage the research is at, what is known about the risks and side effects,
as well as the potential benefits.
Indeed, most Canadian daily newspaper stories on new prescription drugs downplay
or do not mention at all the possible adverse effects of the drugs, according
to the 2003 study, "Drugs
in the News" by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
When reading a news article on a health study, ask yourself the following questions:
- Are you getting more than one side of the story?
- Are other experts, not directly involved in the study, quoted in the news
report?
- Are different opinions put forward in the article?
Alternative points of views will often help you put the research results in
perspective.
Check out the research - How reliable is the study?
Not all studies are of equal quality. Hot-off-the-press reports may appear
trustworthy because they talk about "scientific research". But reporters
rarely have time to read the full study and analyze its complexities. Most of
the time, they rely on press releases which do not assess the strengths and
weaknesses of the research methodology.
| Example: New women's disorder or just a bad
questionnaire?
In 1999, Canadians read a disturbing headline: a study had found that
43% of women suffered from a new disorder called "female sexual dysfunction"
(FSD).
Seldom reported, however, was the way the study was designed. As other
researchers began to take a critical look at the study, concerns were
raised about the way that the data was collected, including this description
by the British Medical Journal:
"About 1500 women were asked to answer' yes' or' no' to whether
they had experienced any of seven problems, for two months or more,
during the previous year, including a lack of desire for sex, anxiety
about sexual performance, and difficulties with lubrication. If the
women answered' yes' to just one of the seven questions, they were included
in a group characterised as having sexual dysfunction."
British
Medical Journal
With questions like that, it wasn't surprising that many healthy women
were characterized as suffering from female sexual dysfunction, including
women who were too stressed or too tired.
Critics of the study argued that while many women may suffer from sexual
difficulties, the cause may be social, political or economic, rather than
a medical 'dysfunction'.
Without digging past the disturbing headline of "43% of women
with FSD", we would be left with a just one small piece of a
very complicated story.
|
Find out who paid for the study
It is important to ask who funded the research. This is often not reported
in a news story. It can take some research of your own, looking for the original
study, which may be available on the Internet, or in a journal available through
a library. Knowing who funded the research may help to reveal why certain research
questions, and not others, were asked, why certain methods were chosen and why
results were presented in particular ways.
For instance, in the example above, when the British Medical Journal traced
the story of female sexual dysfunction (FSD), it found that a number of pharmaceutical
companies had been funding researchers to study FSD since 1997. These companies
were also developing new drugs to "treat" FSD. One could argue that the companies
had a business interest in identifying more women with this "dysfunction".
Certainly, not all corporate-funded research is poor, or one-sided. For the
most part, however, the most credible health research is:
- peer-reviewed,
- published in a respected journal, and
- funded by an organization or agency with no financial interest in the results
Ask a lot of questions
Women
and Health Protection keeps a close watch over the safety of new drugs and
examines the impacts of federal health protection legislation on women's health.
They advise women to ask a lot of questions when new studies on women's health
are promoted.
"It's important to look at what gets researched and what gets promoted.
This is always influenced by certain key factors:
- Who decides what is important?
- Who decides what is legitimate evidence?
- Who is interpreting the findings?
- To what end are the findings being promoted?
In the case of women's health, for a long time, women have not been sufficiently
represented around the tables where these decisions are made."
Anne Rochon Ford, Women and Health Protection.
When experts disagree…
There are many issues on which the medical professions disagree. When played
out in the media, these debates can become very highly charged, but are an important
step in advancing medical knowledge, as well as in raising awareness about what
remains to be known. As women, we can help ourselves by learning about what
the various sides are saying, weighing the pros and cons, and taking our questions
and concerns to our doctors and other health professionals.
Even reputable studies have limitations, and we should be cautious of jumping
to conclusions about new research until people have had an opportunity to digest
it-and to debate it.
| Example: Breast self-examinations- early
warning or waste of time?
In 2001, a study in Canada made the news with headlines like: "Breast-Exams
cause Harm: Study". This flew in the face of what women had been
told for over 50 years.
The study "Preventive
health care, 2001 update: Should women be routinely taught breast self-examination
to screen for breast cancer?" headed by Dr. Nancy Baxter found
no evidence that breast self-examination (BSE) reduces deaths from breast
cancer. It recommended that BSE should no longer routinely be taught to
women, because women were finding many benign (non-cancerous) lumps that
led to unnecessary surgery.
This story created a storm of controversy in the media, with heated debates
from a variety of interested parties, including breast cancer survivors,
researchers and professional organizations. It was a tough issue to understand,
not only because of the complexity of the story, but also because the
emotions surrounding it. Women following this news were faced with a dizzying
array of arguments and many were confused about what to do
As Janine
O'Leary Cobb of Breast Cancer Action Montreal, wrote, "It
is difficult to evaluate the Baxter Report objectively. Those of us who
have had a brush with breast cancer, as well as those who have lived through
the experience with a friend or relative, know that we have a limited
range of options for detecting breast cancer."
Three years after the Baxter study, many organizations such as the Canadian
Cancer Society and several breast cancer activist groups still promote
breast self-examination. Some of the arguments include that the study
had flaws when relating the results to North American women, and that
breast exams give women some control over their health.
Whether or not we choose to do BSE, this public debate highlighted the
need for better tools and strategies to prevent and detect breast cancer.
|
Keep digging for more information
When we look past the headlines, we have the power to inform ourselves, and
make educated choices about our health. News stories can provide a "jumping
off" point in our search for other points of view.
The Internet is a source of thousands of web sites with hot-breaking stories.
As women tend to do most of the searching on the Web for health information,
there are thousands of health web sites aimed at women. Some are excellent,
others are less credible. The Canadian Health Network offers us some solid principles
for searching for quality
health information on the Web.
You can search for more information in many ways:
- Ask a health information or medical librarian to help you find a specific
research article or to help you search for other credible information.)
- Talk with your doctor, pharmacist or another health professional.
- Check out the women's
health pages of the Canadian Health Network or women's health websites
that are non-profit and updated regularly to find more information.
- Beware of websites that do not describe both pros and cons of an issue,
those that do not tell you the source of their information, and those that
try to sell you something along with their information. Advertisers can be
very good at disguising ads as health information.
The next time you see health headlines in the news, remember that you don't
have to be an expert to make sense of the information. Put on your health research
detective 'hat', follow the clues and reach your own conclusions to inform decisions
about your health.
|
Article prepared by the 
