NU 707 Week 8 Discussion Headline Analysis 10-17-21
The platform of social media is an ever-evolving process that allows individuals to gather and communicate, share information, share ideas, and collaborate with others. According to Charalambous (2019), the power of the internet to disseminate information is reflected in the fact that it is the second-highest source of science news (Charalambous, 2019). The use of social media can be a valuable tool for disseminating and consuming information, promoting public awareness, and influencing policymaking about health. Mack (2017) also emphasized that the power of social media has proven to be a great tool in healthcare for sharing resources, taking a pulse on consumer experiences with new devices, and recruiting individuals for clinical trials (Mack, 2017). It is the social media platform where consumers, patients, and customers get most of their information. Creditable use of these platforms can have a significant impact on healthcare and policymaking.
This week’s assignment aims to find a current article in which the headline is misleading and discuss the information presented versus reality. During the literature review, this writer came across an article entitled “Federal study finds marijuana 100 times less toxic than alcohol, safer than tobacco” (Regan, 2018). The article cultivates the view that marijuana is safe to use and only cites one study to support this perspective. The study utilized to help this perspective was suggested to be superior to other toxicological studies. Furthermore, it showed that the risk of marijuana was ranked lower than alcohol, heroin, and tobacco.
The article focused on the potential health benefits of marijuana and provided little information on adverse effects such as intoxication and psychological symptoms. The methodology used in the study was composed of animal toxicology data and discussed a measure that was used which was referred to as the Margin of Exposure. The Margin of Exposure measure was not surmised to be an appropriate measure of harm that could be caused by the chronic use of marijuana (Regan, 2018).
The article appears to be written as an opinion and asserts that marijuana is safe and has medical value. However, it is only based on a single study, as was alluded to earlier. It does not sufficiently address the potential harms of marijuana. Acute and chronic use of marijuana has been known to cause cognitive impairment and, therefore, interfere with an individual’s safety and productivity (Miller, Brown, Lee, & Tibrewal, 2020).
The statement of support from medical research for the value of medical marijuana is misleading. Two self-report studies were mentioned as the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of medical marijuana. No clinical trials were mentioned, which is usually the standard for scientific evidence. Therefore, the article does not present a balanced perspective of this topic.
References
Charalambous, A. (2019). Social media and health policy. Asia-Pacific journal of oncology nursing, 24-27.
Mack, H. (2017, February 28). How social media can impact healthcare in the right-and wrong-ways. Retrieved from https://www.mobihealthnews.com/content/how-social-media-can-impact-healthcare-right-and-wrong-ways
Miller, R., Brown, T., Lee, S., & Tibrewal, I. (2020). Impact of cannabis and low alcohol concentration on divided attention tasks during driving. Traffic Injury Prevention, 1-7.
Regan, J. (2018, January 4). Federal study finds marijuana 100X less toxic than alcohol, safer than tobacco. Retrieved from https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/urhealthguide/
Response to Discussion
Healthcare professionals should use evidence that is supported by research to inform clinical decision-making and practice. They are constantly looking for articles communicating new evidence that can be used to improve patient care. However, some of the information available online is misleading and does not clearly indicate the source of arguments to adequately direct clinical decision-making (De Beer & Matthee, 2020). Your discussion adequately brings this matter to the limelight by narrating how an article you found online has a misleading headline regarding the toxicity and safety of marijuana. From the headline, one would be interested in reading the article to find summaries of research studies that found that marijuana is 100 times less toxic than alcohol, safer than tobacco. Shockingly, this is not the case as the author of the article has only cited a single study with evidence that does not adequately reflect what is stated in the headline (Regan, 2018). From this experience, today’s healthcare professionals should know how to differentiate credible and non-credible sources whenever they are looking for evidence to inform clinical practice.
Articles that are meant to communicate the effectiveness of healthcare interventions should be based on evidence-based research but not on opinions. From your discussion, the reader learns that the article appears to be written as an opinion and asserts that marijuana is safe and has medical value. The article does not sufficiently address the potential harms of marijuana as claimed in the headline. This is not acceptable because people who are not keen on identifying such faults may end up using the documented information to inform patient care thereby causing harm (De Beer & Matthee, 2020). When they are reporting health-related data, healthcare professionals should report only those evidence that is supported by research and they should acknowledge the source of the information that they are presenting by providing clear citations.
References
De Beer, D., & Matthee, M. (2020). Approaches to identify fake news: A systematic literature review. Integrated Science in Digital Age 2020, 136, 13–22. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-49264-9_2
Regan, J. (2018, January 4). Federal study finds marijuana 100X less toxic than alcohol, safer than tobacco. Retrieved from https://healthfeedback.org/outlet/urhealthguide/
| 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 | |||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Substance of Responses |
|
45 pts | |||
| This criterion is linked to a Learning Outcome Grammar, Punctuation & APA |
|
25 pts | |||
| Total Points: 100 | |||||