The media and access issues: content analysis of Canadian newspaper coverage of health policy decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Previous studies have demonstrated how the media has an influence on policy decisions and healthcare coverage. Studies of Canadian media have shown that news coverage often emphasizes and hypes certain aspects of high profile health debates. We hypothesized that in Canadian media coverage of access to healthcare issues about therapies and technologies including for rare diseases, the media would be largely sympathetic towards patients, thus adding to public debate that largely favors increased access to healthcare-even in the face of equivocal evidence regarding efficacy. METHODS: In order to test this hypothesis, we conducted a content analysis of 530 news articles about access to health therapies and technologies from 15 major Canadian newspapers over a 10-year period. Articles were analyzed for the perspectives presented in the articles and the types of reasons or arguments presented either for or against the particular access issue portrayed in the news articles. RESULTS: We found that news media coverage was largely sympathetic towards increasing healthcare funding and ease of access to healthcare (77.4 %). Rare diseases and orphan drugs were the most common issues raised (22.6 %). Patients perspectives were often highlighted in articles (42.3 %). 96.8 % of articles discussed why access to healthcare needs to increase, and discussion that questioned increased access was only included in 33.6 % articles. CONCLUSION: We found that news media favors a patient access ethos, which may contribute to a difficult policy-making environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".