Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. For more information on this collaboration, see the comments published in The Lancet about the trial period, and our decision to make this a permanent offering, or visit The Lancet´s FAQ page, and for any feedback please contact firstname.lastname@example.org.
Media Reports About Violence Against Doctors in China
31 Pages Posted: 13 Oct 2020More...
Background: Improper, unprofessional, or misleading media reports about violence against doctors may provoke copycat incidents. Little is known about the adherence of media reports about violence against doctors to professional journalism recommendations.
Methods: We identified ten influential incidents of violence against doctors in China through a systematic strategy and used standardized internet-based search techniques to retrieve media reports about these events. Reports were evaluated independently by trained coders to assess adherence to professional journalism recommendations using a 14-item checklist.
Findings: In total, 788 eligible media reports were considered. Of those, 50·5% and 47·3% respectively failed to mention the real and complete names of the writer and editor. Reports improperly mentioned specific details about the time, place, methods, and perpetrators of violence in 42·1%, 36·4%, 45·4% and 54·6% of cases, respectively. Over 80% of reports excluded a suggestion to seek help from professional agencies or mediation by a third party and only 3·8% of reports mentioned the perspectives of all three key informants about an event: doctors, patients, and hospital administrators. Of those that mentioned doctor, patient, and/or hospital administrator perspectives, less than 20% indicated they had obtained the interviewee’s consent to include their perspective.
Interpretation: Most reports about violence against doctors in the Chinese media failed to strictly follow reporting recommendations from authoritative media bodies. Efforts are recommended to improve adherence to professional guidelines in media reports about violence against doctors in China, as adherence to those guidelines is likely to reduce future violent events against doctors.
Funding Statement: None declared.
Declaration of Interests: We have no conflicts of interest to declare.
Ethics Approval Statement: This analysis was approved by the ethics committee of Xiangya School of Public Health, Central South University (NO. XYGW-2018-24).
Keywords: Violence against doctors; Workplace violence in the health sector; Media reports; Media; China
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation