Why this matters: How to cover health disparities more effectively

When covering the subject of health disparities, reporters often portray statistics by comparing one racial or ethnic group to another. Typically, media coverage highlights "group disadvantage," often leading with an emphasis on the community that's at greater risk, for example by saying that Black women are 40 percent more likely to die from breast cancer than white women.

In a January study, researchers at Cornell University ran two experiments to test how this sort of social comparison affected people's understanding of their health risks. One experiment analyzed a message about differences in breast cancer mortality rates amongst Black and white women; the other a message about how Black individuals were less likely to get screened for colorectal cancer than white individuals.

In both instances, the comparison language led the group at lower risk, white people, to assume their risks were lower than they were, while the emphasis on their greater risk led Black individuals to feel more disadvantaged.

"Framing disparities in terms of deficits can reinforce negative perceptions when paired with a broad (false) tendency to attribute racial disparities to behavioral explanations," the study's authors concluded.

Jeff Niederdeppe, Ph.D., who led the new work, spoke with AHCJ about these results and what journalists can do to improve their coverage of health disparities while thinking about the impact their language has on readers.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

How do people's views about health influence thinking about racial disparities?

There's a broad tendency in the United States for people to attribute health problems to individuals, and to blame individuals themselves for negative health outcomes that happen. That tendency shapes how people respond to messages about differences in health outcomes in different social groups. This comes from lots of reasons, but it is connected to a dominant ideology of individual responsibility. I think it also comes from an over-attribution of health issues to biological or genetic factors and an under-emphasis on the role of social, economic and environmental factors.

Why does this pose a problem for journalists covering health disparities?

There's a tension here, because we have massive, longstanding racial inequities in health and social outcomes and that's a really important thing for society to grapple with. On the one hand, we ought to be having conversations about ways to address these longstanding inequities. On the other hand, simply talking about their existence can be both demobilizing in some cases and polarizing.

It's not surprising that simply saying disparities exist is not enough to magically lead to social action. But I think it's counterintuitive for some observers who would say that raising awareness is a start. It turns out that it's not always a productive start. And that, I think, is a frustrating outcome.

What role does health journalism play here?

The way that communicators choose to talk about the nature of public health problems can impact how audiences think about them, and whether they think individuals or government or other actors are responsible for addressing them.

There are some real risks to presenting comparative disease risk information in new studies, particularly if that information is not paired with some other strategies that center the audience's thinking on the structural causes and systems that are part of creating health disparities.

What are some things journalists can do to improve their coverage of health disparities?

Journalists should not ignore the fact that disparities exist, but it's also important to describe that they are not inevitable. If a journalist is going to cover an epidemiological article or something that focuses on differences in disease outcomes between groups, my advice would be to not simply share that information and move on, but to pair that with broader reporting that unpacks the causes and potential solutions. It's important to frame disparities in ways that recognize the assets of groups that are facing systemic and structural issues of discrimination.

Another thing journalists should remember is that any new study is sort of building on a much larger body of evidence. The newest study does not necessarily reflect the broader body of work on a topic - it's a snapshot at one point in time. Adding relevant context, on whether things are better or worse than say 20 years ago, can help readers.

If it's improved, then instead of simply presenting the problem, you could show progress, which emphasizes that the disparity is changeable instead of purely saying there's this deficit without any context or nuance to why that is happening. Some focus on the 'why' is essential.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.