|
PubHealth.info®
(a subsidiary of
PakMed) presents scientific information mainly
based on abstracts of articles published on a variety of public health issues/topics,
particularly encompassing
population planning, disease prevention, maternal and child health,
and communicable and
non-communicable diseases (like HIV AIDS, malaria, etc) that are
affecting a significant portion of population in developing and
developed
countries. Here you can find abstracts of articles published on a variety of public health
topics under category "Contraception
(Birth Control) and Family Planning".
Contraception (birth control)
is a regimen of one or more actions, devices, or medications followed in
order to deliberately prevent or reduce the likelihood of a woman
becoming pregnant or giving birth. Therefore contraception is the
utilization of various and sundry surgical procedures, devices,
practices, agents, or drugs with the intention of preventing conception
or impregnation (pregnancy). Methods and intentions typically termed
birth control may be considered a pivotal ingredient to family
planning. Birth control is a controversial political and ethical
issue in many cultures and religions, and although it is generally less
controversial than abortion specifically. |
|
|
| CATEGORY: |
Contraception (Birth Control) and Family Planning |
| Reporting pill panic. A comparative analysis of media coverage of health |
| scares about oral contraceptives. |
| British Journal of Family Planning. 1997 Jul;23(2):62-6. |
| An analysis of UK mass media coverage of two health alerts about possible side effects of combined oral |
| contraceptives (OCs) (an October 1995 warning regarding a link between third-generation OCs and venous |
| thromboembolism, and a June 1996 report about an association between the pill and breast cancer) revealed |
| enormous differences in the use of "scare tactics." Although the risk was small in both cases, the October 1995 |
| coverage escalated quickly into panic, while the June 1996 reporting was far more balanced and low-key. There were |
| 5 times more newspaper stories about the earlier finding. A content analysis of both press and television coverage |
| of the 2 stories indicated language of risk (e.g., use of the word "danger") predominated in the 1995 coverage, while |
| mention of benefits of OC use was more equally balanced with risk phrases in the 1996 story. These differences |
| could not be attributed to the intrinsic qualities of each story. Rather, they seemed related to the way the stories were |
| released to the media. The 1995 story was based on as yet unpublished studies, and the Department of Health had |
| not communicated the information to doctors in advance of its leak to the press. In 1996, by contrast, draft data from |
| the unpublished data were available and physicians had been notified before the leaked report appeared. Thus, the |
| manner of the 1995 announcement heightened the drama of the warning. Finally, whereas the 1996 story included a |
| clear message that women should not stop taking OCs without consulting their doctor, the 1995 story contained an |
| ambiguous message: don't panic, but some brands of OCs are dangerous and should not be prescribed. |
| (PubHealth.info Document ID: CONT2T 1044-06) |
| PubHealth.info NOTE: The author(s) of this article titled, "Reporting pill panic. A comparative analysis of media |
| coverage of health scares about oral contraceptives.", is(are) Hammond PB. The source of this article is "British |
| Journal of Family Planning. 1997 Jul;23(2):62-6.". This article was published in 1997 in English language(s). |
| (PubHealth.info® Document ID: CONT2T 1044-06. All rights reserved with PubHealth.info) PIN: 6044 |
|
|
|
© Copyrights PubHealth.info®,
an information portal on public health. All rights
reserved.
This page is optimized to be viewed by
Java script enabled Microsoft®
Internet Explorer 6 or later version, at screen resolution of 800 by 600 pixels. |
