Healthcare Related Headline Analysis

Headline: “New study finds: Coffee helps protect your heart”

Study: In the article “New study finds: Coffee helps protect your heart” found a study among people without a diagnosis of heart disease consuming a regular cup of coffee of half to three cups a day is associated with a reduced risk of death from heart disease, stroke, and early death for any reason.

My overview of the reality of this article headline:

The study examined the coffee drinking habits of more than 468,000 people in the UK. The study focuses on British citizens, not taking into consideration of people of other countries.

The article acknowledges that most research done on coffee only applies to black coffee and not to other beverages.

The headline does not indicate in any way that adding milk, sugar, and flavors can add a lot of calories, sugar, and fat, which negates the health benefits of coffee.

In the article, according to researchers at the University of Illinois and the University of California, two-thirds of people who drink coffee add too much cream, milk, and sugar to coffee, adding 69 calories a day.

The headline mostly promotes drinking coffee as positive for heart protection. It does not stress the negative benefits of drinking coffee, such as drinking coffee may increase the likelihood of bone fractures in women at risk. Too much caffeine can cause anxiety, insomnia, digestive issues, muscle breakdown, addiction, high blood pressure, a rapid heartbeat, and fatigue. Adding too much cream, milk, and sugar to coffee can increase daily calorie intake.

Reference:

 

Walla. (2021, October 3). New study finds: Coffee helps protect your heart. The Jerusalem post. Retrieved October 11, 2021, from https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/nutrition/how-does-coffee-affect-your-heart-679645 (Links to an external site.)

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Board Responses Rubric
Criteria Ratings Pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Number of Responses

Students are expected to respond to at least 2 of their peers.

30 pts

Exemplary

28-30 points. The responses exceed the requirement for the activity.

27 pts

Satisfactory

23-27 points. The responses fulfill the minimum required number for the discussion activity.

0 pts

Unsatisfactory

0-22 points. The responses do not meet the number required for the activity.

30 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Substance of Responses
45 pts

Exemplary

42-45 points. The responses offer either an extension on the original posting or a clearly alternate point of view that fosters further thinking, reflection, or response on the discussion topic.

41 pts

Satisfactory

34-41 points. The responses generally offer some insight by either extending the point of the original or offering an alternate point of view, but they may not encourage further thought or reflection on the discussion topic as much as they possibly could.

0 pts

Unsatisfactory

0-33 points. The responses do not offer any new or very limited insight by either extending the position of the original post or providing an alternate point of view.

45 pts
This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Grammar, Punctuation & APA
25 pts

Exemplary

23-25 points. The postings have less than 3 errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or APA.

22 pts

Satisfactory

19-22 points. The postings have 3-5 errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or APA.

0 pts

Unsatisfactory

0-18 points. The postings have more than 5 errors in grammar, punctuation, and/or APA.

25 pts
Total Points: 100

Discussion

Headlines that are used on published work should serve to alert the reader of the actual contents of a given publication. However, this is not always the case in all publications as some authors use misleading headlines in their articles. The use of misleading headlines on articles can negatively impact healthcare practice, especially when healthcare professionals who are not keen enough to notice the pitfalls continue to apply whatever they have read with patients (Pennycook et al., 2021). This explains why it is important for healthcare professionals to analyze deadlines to establish whether they truly reflect what is in the articles.

Like any other health practice approaches, interventions that inform clinical decisions on heart-related issues should be evidence-based. The article that you described in your discussion indeed has a misleading headline that can misinform healthcare professionals to advise patients to constantly take coffee in order to protect their hearts from any health-related complications. I support your opinion that the headline specifically portrays drinking coffee as positive for heart protection. The author claims that a study among people without a diagnosis of heart disease consuming a regular cup of coffee of half to three cups a day is associated with a reduced risk of death from heart disease, stroke, and early death for any reason (Walla, 2021). Such a claim should be supported by statistical evidence that clearly shows the relationship among relevant variables. Critical analysis of headlines can guide decisions as to whether discard or retain certain articles online and this can help to reduce and prevent misinformation online.

References

Pennycook, G., Epstein, Z., & Mosleh, M. (2021). Shifting attention to accuracy can reduce misinformation online. Nature, 592, 590–595. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-03344-2

Walla. (2021, October 3). New study finds: Coffee helps protect your heart. The Jerusalem Post. Retrieved October 11, 2021, from https://www.jpost.com/health-and-wellness/nutrition/how-does-coffee-affect-your-heart-679645 (Links to an external site.)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *