A year in the public life of COVID-19 and Vitamin D: Representation in UK news media and implications for health communications

  1. Alexandra Mavroeidi
  2. Ryan Innes
  3. Esperanza Miyake
  4. Diane Pennington

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Objectives

To investigate how the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 has been presented in traditional media sources (UK newspapers) and assess the level of misinformation associated with this issue by comparing newspaper article content to the evidence-based guidelines.

Design

Qualitative study

Setting

Data were collected over the first year of the pandemic (February 2019-20), from the five most widely read UK based newspapers by searching the Nexis database using keywords “vitamin D” and “COVID”. An inductive thematic analysis was carried out on the data to identify themes and subthemes. Quality control of the coding was conducted on a sample of the dataset (20%). Data were also compared to the “ground truth” identified as the NICE report titled “COVID-19 rapid guideline: vitamin D” to explore the accuracy of media outputs.

Results

The four main themes identified were ‘association of vitamin D with COVID-19’, ‘politically informed views’, ‘vitamin D deficiency’ and ‘vitamin D sources’. When compared to the ground truth, most of the information from newspaper articles relating to the key findings was ‘correct’ for each of the findings, except for COVID-19 infection.

Conclusions

Although most of the information included in newspaper articles concerning the relationship of vitamin D with COVID-19 was ‘correct’, this study highlighted that there was still a notable amount of ‘incorrect’ information published. In the context of COVID-19, it is imperative that media outputs are accurate and inform the public and front-line health professionals as correct information is a key factor in disease prevention. Future research should focus on the accuracy of media outputs to further investigate health misinformation as an issue in traditional media and how that may affect public health. Attempts should be made to improve journalistic integrity through more rigorous and standardised regulations enforced across all media outlets so that public knowledge on current events is based on evidence rather than conjecture.

Summary boxes

Data sharing statement:

We are happy to share any data if/when asked.

Article activity feed

  1. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.13.22273832: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Ethicsnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The strengths and weaknesses of this study must be considered. The collection of articles from the beginning of the pandemic until 19/2/2021 provides a comprehensive view of the nature of UK media coverage regarding the relationship between vitamin D and COVID-19 throughout the course of the pandemic. Also, as the data were collected from the five most popular newspapers, it is fair to assume that these articles would have been the most read in the UK, increasing the likelihood that public opinion was influenced by the articles. However, it must also be noted that the highest frequency of vitamin D and COVID-19 related articles occurred in one newspaper (Express Online). As such a high quantity of the data came from the same source, it is possible that the data was skewed. Although most of the information included in newspaper articles concerning the relationship of vitamin D with COVID-19 was ‘correct’, this study highlighted that there was still a notable amount of ‘incorrect’ information published. Previous research has indicated that the general population are ill-informed about preventative measures they can take to avoid diseases [14]. In the context of COVID-19, it is imperative that the public are well informed as information is a key factor in disease prevention [14]. Future research should focus on the accuracy of media outputs to explore if misinformation is a widespread issue in traditional media. If misinformation is found to be an issue, attempts should be made ...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  2. Version published to 10.1101/2022.04.13.22273832v1 on medRxiv