{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03497122620628597, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002877379371403276, 'mean_word_length': 5.148299319727891, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 1, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Who is to blame? Medical hype in the media

The rise of online and social media platforms as tools for the dissemination and exchange of findings from health research presents both unique opportunities and critical challenges. A Viewpoint featured in the September issue of Movement Disorders highlights one of these challenges: the hype and sensationalism that surround medical treatments, and treatments for Parkinson’s disease (PD) specifically, in the media. This issue is timely, as media consumption has largely shifted to the online environment, and recent survey data show that 91% of physicians have seen patients who made inquiries about information they found on the Internet. Although online health information may spur important conversations between patients and physicians, low-quality communication about potential treatments for conditions such as PD may lead to important harms. The authors of the Viewpoint highlight issues such as false hopes, tensions in the patientphysician relationship, and potential increases in medical tourism, all of which are supported by empirical evidence. Overly hyped or factually incorrect online health information can also lead to the early adoption, use, and promotion of unproven interventions, as well as to negative health outcomes. As one example, a study about websites containing information about popular herbal supplements showed that one-quarter of these websites provide recommendations that, if followed, will lead directly to physical harms. On the societal level, overly simplified or hyped findings from medical research can dilute verifiable expertise to the point that the authority of experts over the subject matter appears questionable to those who are uncertain about whom to trust. This, in turn, can lead to a reduction in public confidence in both scientists and institutions, sometimes with disastrous consequences, as has been the case with childhood immunizations. Addressing the urgent challenges raised by low-quality online information requires a careful examination of the role of scientists, information providers, and patient communities in knowledge dissemination and exchange. To better understand the phenomenon of medical hype in the media, we must first consider the broader context in which it takes place. The deep specialization of scientific research, the evolving landscape of academic publishing, and the changing media environment, along with contextual pressures, have created complex new challenges for scientists and information providers alike. In modern academia, the “publish-or-perish” environment combined with the explosion in the number of low-quality or even fraudulent academic journal publishers has led to a flooding of the literature with evidence gathered with varying levels of rigor. In parallel with this development, scientists face tremendous pressures to appeal to a wide range of stakeholders, including funding bodies, the industry, and the public. Taken together, these pressures can reduce complicated scientific discovery to simple sound bites or headlines, overly simplified reports, and exaggerated claims of real-world impact in a range of communication types, from media interviews to grant proposal summaries. Wide-ranging attempts to disseminate new research findings can result in miscommunication and misinterpretation, especially among nonexperts. Meanwhile, scientists who actively pursue high-quality opportunities for public engagement and science communication are viewed as less serious compared with their peers who favor traditional academic communication channels. On this topic, a survey by the Royal Society revealed that researchers felt that “public engagement activities are seen by peers as bad for their career” and that “public engagement was done by those who were ‘not good enough’ for an academic career.” The stigma attached to scientists to pursue media and public engagement activities persists to this day, despite the fact that the research community recognizes the benefits of an informed public that values medical research. Alongside the complex pressures scientists face when communicating their results, the media environment, too, is changing. The mass media are increasingly democratized, and the last few years have seen a sharp -*Correspondence to: Julie M. Robillard, PhD, Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health, Room 3450D, 2215 Wesbrook Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z3; jrobilla@mail.ubc.ca