Clinical trial NCT03095950: Interpretation of Health News Items Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials With or Without Spin by French-speaking Population
Official title: Interpretation of Health News Items Reporting Results of Randomized Controlled Trials With or Without Spin: A Randomized Controlled Trial Among French-speaking Population
Study type: INTERVENTIONAL
Overall status: WITHDRAWN
Phase: NA
Conditions: The Study Focus on no Specific Condition
Keywords: Spin
Misleading reporting
Misleading interpretation
Misleading extrapolation
Randomized controlled trials
Patients
Lead sponsor: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
Sponsor class: OTHER
First posted: 2017-03-30
Enrollment: 0
Sex: ALL
Minimum age (years): 18
Standard ages: ADULT
OLDER_ADULT
Accepts healthy volunteers: yes
Allocation: RANDOMIZED
Intervention model: PARALLEL
Intervention model description: Two arms, parallel group, randomized controlled trial
Primary purpose: OTHER

Brief summary: The main objective of this study is to compare the interpretation of health news items reporting results of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with or without spin (i.e., distortion of research results). The news items which reported those studies evaluating the treatment effect, having highest number of spin in the headline and text and received high online public attention will be selected. Spin will be deleted and will rewrite the news items without spin. This sample of news items reporting results of RCTs with and without spin will be interpreted by French-speaking population.

Detailed description: Health news is an important way to communicate updated medical research to the public. News items reporting the results of medical research attract a large audience. However, the quality of reporting in health news is questionable. The merits of a wide range of treatments and tests are overplayed and harms are underplayed. Several studies have shown the presence of spin (i.e., distorted presentation of study results) in health news. Distorted facts can be misleading and can affect the behaviour of physicians, healthcare providers and patients. However, little research has assessed whether spin can affect readers' interpretation of health news items.

Objective: "Spin" is defined as a misrepresentation of study results whatever the motive (intentionally or unintentionally) to highlight that the beneficial effect of the intervention in terms of efficacy and safety is greater than that shown by the results. To compare the interpretation of health news items reporting RCTs with or without spin. News items evaluating the effect of a pharmacological treatment that received high online public attention will be focused.

Hypothesis: The hypothesis of this study is that the spin can influence the reader's interpretation of health news items reporting results of RCTs.

Design: A randomized controlled trial

1. Interventions: Health news items reporting results of RCTs with and without spin will be compared. A sample of health news items reporting the results of RCTs evaluating the effect of pharmacologic treatment and containing highest number of spin in the headline and text will be selected. Spin will be deleted in the selected news items and will be rewritten the news items without spin.
2. Participants: The participants will include French-speaking population from an e-cohort Nutrinet santé.
3. Sample size will be 300 patients.
4. The primary outcome will be perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X. We will ask participants, what do you think is the probability that treatment X would be beneficial to patients? (scale, 0 \[very unlikely\] to 10 \[very likely\]). Perception of safety and beneficial effects of treatment in clinical studies is considered as a surrogate marker of health outcome as it may have an impact on the future development of the drug, and then the potential use of the drug for patients.
5. This study is approved by ethics review regulations by INSERM (CEEI-IRB): IRB00003888

Eligibility criteria: Inclusion Criteria:

* Native French speakers

Exclusion Criteria:

-

Primary outcomes:
measure: Perception of beneficial effect of the treatment X
timeFrame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
Secondary outcomes:
measure: Perception of efficacy, safety, availability and clinical utility of the treatment X in existing clinical practice
timeFrame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
measure: How safe do you think that treatment X would be for patients?
timeFrame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
measure: Do you think this treatment should be offered to patients in the short term?
timeFrame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
measure: Do you think this treatment will make a difference in the existing clinical practice?
timeFrame: As the intervention is assigned (reading the news item) i.e., 1-2 hours
Other outcomes:
Locations:
city: Paris
country: France
facility: Assistance Publique - Hôpitaux de Paris
state: Ile-de-france
Study officials:
affiliation: INSERM U1153, University of Paris-Descartes
name: Isabelle BOUTRON, Prof.
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
affiliation: INSERM U1153, University of Paris-Descartes
name: Romana HANEEF, PhD researcher
role: PRINCIPAL_INVESTIGATOR
References: