| Title |
Gordie Howe’s Stem Cell ‘Miracle’: A Qualitative Analysis of News Coverage and Readers’ Comments in Newspapers and Sports Websites
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Stem Cell Reviews and Reports, July 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s12015-015-9606-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Christen Rachul, Timothy Caulfield |
| Abstract |
Stem cells continue to garner attention by the news media and play a role in public and policy discussions of emerging technologies. As new media platforms develop, it is important to understand how different news media represents emerging stem cell technologies and the role these play in public discussions. We conducted a comparative analysis of newspaper and sports websites coverage of one recent high profile case: Gordie Howe's stem cell treatment in Mexico. Using qualitative coding methods, we analyzed news articles and readers' comments from Canadian and US newspapers and sports websites. Results indicate that the efficacy of stem cell treatments is often assumed in news coverage and readers' comments indicate a public with a wide array of beliefs and perspectives on stem cells and their clinical efficacy. Media coverage that presents uncritical perspectives on unproven stem cell therapies may create patient expectations, may have an affect on policy discussions, and help to feed the marketing of unproven therapies. However, news coverage that provides more balanced or critical coverage of unproven stem cell treatments may also inspire more critical discussion, as reflected in readers' comments. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 42 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 12 | 29% |
| Canada | 10 | 24% |
| Australia | 3 | 7% |
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| Ireland | 1 | 2% |
| Belgium | 1 | 2% |
| Austria | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 13 | 31% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 20 | 48% |
| Scientists | 9 | 21% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 7 | 17% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 6 | 14% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 25 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 25 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Professor | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 8% |
| Student > Master | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 7 | 28% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 24% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 5 | 20% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 8% |
| Psychology | 2 | 8% |
| Other | 3 | 12% |
| Unknown | 5 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 191. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 27 July 2022.
All research outputs
#212,589
of 25,761,363 outputs
Outputs from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#6
of 1,055 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#2,061
of 277,253 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Stem Cell Reviews and Reports
#1
of 18 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,761,363 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,055 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 277,253 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 18 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.