A quantitative analysis of the quality and content of the health advice in popular Australian magazines.

Wilson, A; Smith, D; Peel, R; Robertson, J; Kypri, K

A quantitative analysis of the quality and content of the health advice in popular Australian magazines.

Wilson, A

Smith, D Peel, R Robertson, J Kypri, K

Permalink

Publisher:: WILEY
Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Aust N Z J Public Health, 2017, 41, (3), pp. 256-258
Issue Date:: 2017-06

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Aus NZ J of Public Health - 2016 - Wilson - A quantitative analysis of the quality and content of the health advice in.pdf	Published version	77.29 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Wilson, A https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5681-9611
dc.contributor.author	Smith, D
dc.contributor.author	Peel, R
dc.contributor.author	Robertson, J
dc.contributor.author	Kypri, K
dc.date.accessioned	2022-09-21T21:29:34Z
dc.date.available	2016-08-01
dc.date.available	2022-09-21T21:29:34Z
dc.date.issued	2017-06
dc.identifier.citation	Aust N Z J Public Health, 2017, 41, (3), pp. 256-258
dc.identifier.issn	1326-0200
dc.identifier.issn	1753-6405
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161960
dc.description.abstract	OBJECTIVE: To examine how health advice is provided in popular magazines and the quality of that advice. METHODS: A prospective quantitative analysis of the quality of health advice provided in Australian magazines between July and December 2011 was conducted. A rating instrument was adapted from the Media Doctor Australia rating tool used to assess quality of health news reporting. Criteria included: recommends seeing a doctor; advice based on reliable evidence; advice clear and easily applied; benefits presented meaningfully; potential harms mentioned; evidence of disease mongering; availability and cost of treatments; obvious advertising; vested interest, and anecdotal evidence. RESULTS: 163 health advice articles were rated showing a wide variation in the quality of advice presented between magazines. Magazines with 'health' in the title, rated most poorly with only 36% (26/73) of these articles presenting clear and meaningful advice and 52% (38/73) giving advice based on reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Australian magazines, especially those with health in the title, generally presented poor quality, unreliable health advice. Teen magazine Dolly provided the highest quality advice. IMPLICATIONS: Consumers need to be aware of this when making health choices.
dc.format	Print-Electronic
dc.language	eng
dc.publisher	WILEY
dc.relation.ispartof	Aust N Z J Public Health
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1111/1753-6405.12617
dc.rights	info:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccess
dc.subject	1117 Public Health and Health Services, 1402 Applied Economics, 1605 Policy and Administration
dc.subject.classification	Public Health
dc.subject.mesh	Consumer Health Information
dc.subject.mesh	Health Literacy
dc.subject.mesh	Health Promotion
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	New Zealand
dc.subject.mesh	Periodicals as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Prospective Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Humans
dc.subject.mesh	Prospective Studies
dc.subject.mesh	Health Promotion
dc.subject.mesh	New Zealand
dc.subject.mesh	Periodicals as Topic
dc.subject.mesh	Consumer Health Information
dc.subject.mesh	Health Literacy
dc.title	A quantitative analysis of the quality and content of the health advice in popular Australian magazines.
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	41
utslib.location.activity	Australia
utslib.for	1117 Public Health and Health Services
utslib.for	1402 Applied Economics
utslib.for	1605 Policy and Administration
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access	*
dc.date.updated	2022-09-21T21:29:33Z
pubs.issue	3
pubs.publication-status	Published
pubs.volume	41
utslib.citation.issue	3

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To examine how health advice is provided in popular magazines and the quality of that advice. METHODS: A prospective quantitative analysis of the quality of health advice provided in Australian magazines between July and December 2011 was conducted. A rating instrument was adapted from the Media Doctor Australia rating tool used to assess quality of health news reporting. Criteria included: recommends seeing a doctor; advice based on reliable evidence; advice clear and easily applied; benefits presented meaningfully; potential harms mentioned; evidence of disease mongering; availability and cost of treatments; obvious advertising; vested interest, and anecdotal evidence. RESULTS: 163 health advice articles were rated showing a wide variation in the quality of advice presented between magazines. Magazines with 'health' in the title, rated most poorly with only 36% (26/73) of these articles presenting clear and meaningful advice and 52% (38/73) giving advice based on reliable evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Australian magazines, especially those with health in the title, generally presented poor quality, unreliable health advice. Teen magazine Dolly provided the highest quality advice. IMPLICATIONS: Consumers need to be aware of this when making health choices.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/161960