Suchergebnisse

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The quality of medical articles in journalism has a central role in informed decision-making by patients as well as by political, economic and social players, but also to general "health literacy". Therefore, quality standards that take into account basic scientific and journalistic principles, but are also scalable to specific health-related topics (such as medicine, nutrition and environment) are particularly relevant. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Starting from an internationally established catalogue in the framework of the "media doctor project", criteria for good medical journalism were analysed, reclassified and completed on the basis of theoretical concepts and practical applicability. In parallel, existing criteria from medical journalism were transferred to an adapted criteria catalogue for reporting on nutrition. RESULTS: A consensus was reached on a catalogue of criteria modularised into general journalistic, general science journalistic and specific medical journalistic aspects, which is published here for the first time in a scientific paper. With some rare exceptions, quality criteria for medical journalism could be well adapted to nutritional topics. Based on the two catalogues, further media contributions have been regularly evaluated. CONCLUSIONS: The advanced modularisation of the criteria catalogues facilitates their applicability and possibly their extension to other disciplines and for use by medical doctors as well as by laypersons. While medical journalism is strongly oriented towards the criteria of scientific evidence, the role of academic studies and experts versus anecdotal evidence should be further investigated for nutritional journalism.

Hintergrund und Ziele: Die Qualität medizinjournalistischer Beiträge spielt bei informierten Entscheidungen von Patienten, von politischen, wirtschaftlichen und gesellschaftlichen Akteuren sowie für die allgemeine Gesundheitskompetenz (Health Literacy) eine zentrale Rolle. Daher erscheinen Qualitätsstandards notwendig, die wissenschaftliche und journalistische Prinzipien berücksichtigen, aber auch flexibel auf Besonderheiten spezieller gesundheitsrelevanter Themenfelder (Medizin, Ernährung, Umwelt) skalierbar sind. Methoden: Im Rahmen des Medien-Doktor-Projekts wurden, ausgehend von einem internationalen Katalog, Kriterien für guten Medizinjournalismus analysiert, auf Basis theoretischer Konzepte und praktischer Anwendbarkeit neu klassifiziert und ergänzt. Parallel wurde ein Kriterienkatalog für guten Ernährungsjournalismus abgeleitet. Ergebnisse: Es konnte ein Konsens über einen Kriterienkatalog erzielt werden, der in allgemeinjournalistische, allgemeinwissenschaftsjournalistische und spezifisch medizinjournalistische Aspekte modularisiert ist. Dieser wird hier erstmals in einem Fachbeitrag vorgestellt. Medizinjournalistische Qualitätskriterien ließen sich mit wenigen Ausnahmen gut auf Ernährungsthemen anpassen. Auf Basis der beiden Kataloge werden seitdem regelmäßig weitere Medienbeiträge bewertet. Diskussion: Die stärkere Modularisierung der Kriterienkataloge erleichtert deren Anwendbarkeit und eventuell auch Ausweitung auf weitere Fachdisziplinen sowie die Nutzung durch Ärzte ebenso wie Laien. Während sich der Medizinjournalismus stark an wissenschaftlichen Evidenzkriterien orientiert, sollte für den Ernährungsjournalismus weiter untersucht werden, welche Rolle Studien und Experten im Vergleich zu anekdotischer Evidenz spielen. ; Background and objectives: The quality of medical articles in journalism has a central role in informed decision-making by patients as well as by political, economic and social players, but also to general "health literacy". Therefore, quality standards that take into account basic scientific and journalistic principles, but are also scalable to specific health-related topics (such as medicine, nutrition and environment) are particularly relevant. Materials and methods: Starting from an internationally established catalogue in the framework of the "media doctor project", criteria for good medical journalism were analysed, reclassified and completed on the basis of theoretical concepts and practical applicability. In parallel, existing criteria from medical journalism were transferred to an adapted criteria catalogue for reporting on nutrition. Results: A consensus was reached on a catalogue of criteria modularised into general journalistic, general science journalistic and specific medical journalistic aspects, which is published here for the first time in a scientific paper. With some rare exceptions, quality criteria for medical journalism could be well adapted to nutritional topics. Based on the two catalogues, further media contributions have been regularly evaluated. Conclusions: The advanced modularisation of the criteria catalogues facilitates their applicability and possibly their extension to other disciplines and for use by medical doctors as well as by laypersons. While medical journalism is strongly oriented towards the criteria of scientific evidence, the role of academic studies and experts versus anecdotal evidence should be further investigated for nutritional journalism.