Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Public Understanding of Science
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Entwistle, V.
Right arrow Articles by Hancock-Beaulieu, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Health and medical coverage in the UK national press

Vikki Entwistle

Queen Margaret College, Clerwood Terrace, Edinburgh EH12 8TS, UK

Micheline Hancock-Beaulieu

Department of Information Science at City University, Northampton Square, London EC1V 0HB, UK

The growth of UK public interest in health in the last decade is reflected by the inclusion in most national newspapers of regular health or medical sections. These potentially allow subjects to be covered in detail, with more background information and useful advice. This paper reports on a content analysis study of eight national newspapers, which aimed to obtain an overview of press health coverage, to compare the coverage of popular and quality papers, and to analyse differences in health topic coverage between 1981 and 1990. The subject coverage, information provision and presentation of health related articles were considered. The most common subject categories were diseases, preventive medicine (including diet and exercise) and the National Health Service. Class inequalities in health received very little coverage. Clear differences were confirmed between quality broadsheet and popular tabloid newspapers. Quality papers provided more scientific information about health and paid more attention to political contexts. They made more use of authoritative journals and reports than popular papers, which focused on individual case histories and tended to quote a lay viewpoint. Popular press articles were generally more sensationalized and less objective in their reporting style. Newspapers do not exist solely to further public understanding, but have potential to contribute to it. Some informative, useful articles about health are found, but the study shows room for improvement, especially among the papers whose readership is concentrated in lower socio-economic groups.

Public Understanding of Science, Vol. 1, No. 4, 367-382 (1992)
DOI: 10.1088/0963-6625/1/4/002
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Public Understanding of ScienceHome page
J. Park, H. Jeon, and R. A. Logan
The Korean press and Hwang's fraud
Public Understanding of Science, November 1, 2009; 18(6): 653 - 669.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Social Science InformationHome page
M. Bauer
The medicalization of science news - from the "rocket-scalpel" to the "gene-meteorite" complex
Social Science Information, December 1, 1998; 37(4): 731 - 751.
[Abstract]

Home page
 BMJHome page
V. Entwistle
Reporting research in medical journals and newspapers
BMJ, April 8, 1995; 310(6984): 920 - 923.
[Full Text]