Comparing Frequency of Online News Coverage, Worldwide Mortality and Perceived Risk of Leading Diseases and Injuries: Challenging Paradigms in the New Media Landscape

Theoretical Background and research questions/hypothesis: Based on agenda setting theory, media influence what people think about with respect to health and disease. What is covered by mass media plays an important role in the way people receive health information, the importance they ascribe to health issues, and the perceived personal risk or susceptibility to each issue. The literature on perceived risk, agenda setting and media coverage suggests that public perception of risk is based on the frequency of media coverage on an issue, but that media coverage does not necessarily correspond to the mortality or global burden of diseases and injuries. Acknowledging the importance of the Internet as a major source of health news and information, this study tested the following hypotheses: H1: Frequency of online news coverage correlates with the public’s perceived personal risk of specific diseases/injuries. H2: Frequency of online news coverage is not correlated with actual mortality by diseases/injuries. H3: The public’s perceived personal risk of specific diseases does not correlate with actual mortality by diseases/injuries RQ1: Is there a difference in perceived threat to society and perceived risk to self?  

Methods and Results (informing the conceptual analysis): Eleven (11) causes of death were included in this study.  These were chosen to represent the primary causes of death around the world including chronic (cancer, heart disease, diabetes) and infectious diseases (HIV/Aids, tuberculosis, meningitis, Hepatitis C), intentional and unintentional injuries, as well as anthrax and H1N1 flu (chosen because they have had low mortality but high media coverage). Mortality data was taken from the WHO Mortality Estimates. Media coverage was measured through a Lexis-Nexis search of three major online news outlets. Audience’s perceived risk was assessed through a survey of 225 Internet users, representing a diverse range of ages and ethnicities. There was no correlation between the measure of frequency of media coverage and perceived personal risk (H1 not supported). There was no correlation between frequency of media coverage and mortality (H2 supported).  Frequency of coverage in the three mainstream media outlets studied did not correlate with worldwide mortality, the public’s perceived risk of the problem did (H3 partially supported).  For all diseases and injuries, respondents rated the risk to society greater than their personal risk (RQ1).  

Conclusions: Findings suggest that in the era of the Internet and alternative sources of information, the traditional leading media outlets studied are not setting the agenda. It seems that people are influenced by other online sources, including interpersonal contacts through social networking.  Respondents rated the threat to society greater than their personal risk, suggesting that while they recognize these issues as a problem in society, they do not feel personally vulnerable.   Of particular interest are the categories of intentional injuries and HIV/AIDS.  

Implications for research and/or practice: Broader content analyses of media coverage are needed looking at diverse sources beyond traditional news outlets to fully uderstand how Internet metlth information influences aduiecnes. Futher rsearch is needed to understand why perceived threat to society does not translate into perceived threat to self among highly educated Internet users, and whether the health information available on the Internet contributes to this phenomenon.