ity could serve as a potent ally in the struggle for community
health. Dr Gellert asks for specifics and "operationally implementable recommendations." The objectives proposed in our article are general tenets that address the current imbalance in the education, patient care, and research programs at academic health centers. Specific solutions will develop as the
applied at each center. Indeed, unique pro¬ grams are evolving at each of the 17 Health of the Public institutions, some focusing on achieving change within the institution while others address the relationship between the center and the community; these programs and their strat¬ egies will be documented in a manual that is currently under development. Dr Wittig cogently describes the problems facing students who chose primary care medicine. Producing more physicians trained in primary care is a critical need but is not enough. Many changes must occur within and beyond the academic objectives
medical societies now have public relations committees and programs that teach physicians ethical and effective tech¬ niques of working with the media. Physicians are educators and television is one more excellent opportunity for us to provide information to the public. The media are magical and let's make the magic work for us and not against us. Neil Baum, MD New Orleans, La
are
health center. It is our contention that all health care pro¬ fessionals (not just those in primary care tracks) should have a basic understanding of population medicine, that is, of the social, cultural, economic, and environmental conditions that produce health and illness. Whether because of the need to estimate the expected prevalence of a disease when inter¬ preting the results of a diagnostic test or for the prescription of culturally and economically appropriate treatment, both specialists and primary care physicians need to have knowl¬ edge of epidemiologie principles and the social and behavioral causes and consequences of illness. The population sciences (which include epidemiology, biostatistics, economics, and sociology) have made substantial contributions to our understanding of the causes of, and treat¬ ment for, the major health problems in our society. More illness and death have been prevented by changes over the last two decades in smoking and diet alone than by biomedicai technologies such as angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Yet the traditional segregation of the popu¬ lation sciences into their own academic units, such as schools of public health, has tended to keep these disciplines separate from the core activities of health professional education and unequal in the eyes of the academic establishment. The es¬ sence of Health of the Public is to integrate population sci¬ ences into health professional education, research, and pa¬ tient care, while maintaining the current excellence and pro¬ ductivity of both population and biomedicai disciplines. Jonathan Showstack, MPH University of California, San Franicisco
The Magical Medical Media Tour To the Editor.\p=m-\Iam concerned about the disdain that Mr Schwitzer1 has for the medium of television and the physicians who engage in electronic dissemination of information. Does Schwitzer forget that we are living in the "age of information" and that the television is where many Americans get their health care information? Although "high tech" gets priority with the media, "high touch" is also newsworthy. Several years ago, several of my colleagues and I provided free health care for a woman from Mexico City who could not receive medical care in her own community because of the earthquake. The hospital notified the television stations and all of them ran this wonderful human interest story. When President Reagan had his prostate surgery, I was contacted by a newspaper and a television station to provide a "local angle" on prostate surgery. Physicians have an opportunity to create the news and to educate the public in a positive fashion. National and state
1. Schwitzer G. The
magical medical media tour. JAMA. 1992;267:1969-1971.
To the Editor.\p=m-\Iread Mr Schwitzer's1 article with interest. The issues that Schwitzer raises are real and should be of special concern to all health professionals. These issues form the basis for the establishment of the National Association of Physician Broadcasters (NAPB), the nation's oldest and largest organization supporting physicians in print and electronic media. The NAPB sponsors two educational meetings per year in conjunction with the American Medical Association Health Reporting Conference each spring and the American Medical Association Science Reporters Conference in the fall. At the fall 1991 meeting, at which Schwitzer was a featured panelist, we explored the ethical issues that he has raised in his article: those touching on accuracy, independence, personal rights, continuity of care, and a thoughtful process in content selection. We also released at that time the NAPB Code of Ethics, which includes 25 credos that clearly set the standard that Schwitzer requests of those involved in health broadcasting. As the primary organization representing physicians in health broadcasting, we believe that health reporters should have a strong foundation in medical science. We believe that information must be up-to-date and accurate, and that areas of controversy or doubt should be clearly defined and com¬ municated with conflicting points of view appropriately rep¬ resented. We believe that in the pursuit of accuracy and truth, there is a need to function in a fully creditable and independent manner with all sources of information fully disclosed. We acknowledge the right of our audience, as ex¬ tensions of our own patients, to a standard of interaction that is respectful, courteous, and consistent with the teachings of the profession of medicine. We believe that content selection should be based on its potential positive impact on America's health and that selection of material based on sensationalism or
ratings appeal unaccompanied by redeemable, positive
health impact should be avoided. We believe that the eval¬ uation of cost and quality of health care should be integral to the content development process and that emphasis should be placed on educational and instructional design with clearly defined health missions. Finally, we are committed to tying our activities to existing community health resources in the hopes that such networking might enhance our program's beneficial effects. In summary, Schwitzer's article raises real and legitimate concerns. The NAPB over the past 10 years, through its association with leaders in health journalism such as Schwit¬ zer, through collaborative working relationships with orga¬ nizations such as the American Medical Association on projects directly related to enhancing America's health and Wellness, and through the establishment of a Code of Ethics that sets a high standard for health broadcasting, has attempted to provide leadership in this very important arena. Michael C. Magee, MD National Association of Physician Broadcasters Chicago, Ill 1. Schwitzer G. The
These letters
were
magical
medical media tour. JAMA. 1992;267:1969-1971.
shown to Mr
Schwitzer, who declined to reply.—Ed.
Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Karolinska Institutet University Library User on 05/24/2015
health. Dr Gellert asks for specifics and "operationally implementable recommendations." The objectives proposed in our article are general tenets that address the current imbalance in the education, patient care, and research programs at academic health centers. Specific solutions will develop as the
applied at each center. Indeed, unique pro¬ grams are evolving at each of the 17 Health of the Public institutions, some focusing on achieving change within the institution while others address the relationship between the center and the community; these programs and their strat¬ egies will be documented in a manual that is currently under development. Dr Wittig cogently describes the problems facing students who chose primary care medicine. Producing more physicians trained in primary care is a critical need but is not enough. Many changes must occur within and beyond the academic objectives
medical societies now have public relations committees and programs that teach physicians ethical and effective tech¬ niques of working with the media. Physicians are educators and television is one more excellent opportunity for us to provide information to the public. The media are magical and let's make the magic work for us and not against us. Neil Baum, MD New Orleans, La
are
health center. It is our contention that all health care pro¬ fessionals (not just those in primary care tracks) should have a basic understanding of population medicine, that is, of the social, cultural, economic, and environmental conditions that produce health and illness. Whether because of the need to estimate the expected prevalence of a disease when inter¬ preting the results of a diagnostic test or for the prescription of culturally and economically appropriate treatment, both specialists and primary care physicians need to have knowl¬ edge of epidemiologie principles and the social and behavioral causes and consequences of illness. The population sciences (which include epidemiology, biostatistics, economics, and sociology) have made substantial contributions to our understanding of the causes of, and treat¬ ment for, the major health problems in our society. More illness and death have been prevented by changes over the last two decades in smoking and diet alone than by biomedicai technologies such as angioplasty and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Yet the traditional segregation of the popu¬ lation sciences into their own academic units, such as schools of public health, has tended to keep these disciplines separate from the core activities of health professional education and unequal in the eyes of the academic establishment. The es¬ sence of Health of the Public is to integrate population sci¬ ences into health professional education, research, and pa¬ tient care, while maintaining the current excellence and pro¬ ductivity of both population and biomedicai disciplines. Jonathan Showstack, MPH University of California, San Franicisco
The Magical Medical Media Tour To the Editor.\p=m-\Iam concerned about the disdain that Mr Schwitzer1 has for the medium of television and the physicians who engage in electronic dissemination of information. Does Schwitzer forget that we are living in the "age of information" and that the television is where many Americans get their health care information? Although "high tech" gets priority with the media, "high touch" is also newsworthy. Several years ago, several of my colleagues and I provided free health care for a woman from Mexico City who could not receive medical care in her own community because of the earthquake. The hospital notified the television stations and all of them ran this wonderful human interest story. When President Reagan had his prostate surgery, I was contacted by a newspaper and a television station to provide a "local angle" on prostate surgery. Physicians have an opportunity to create the news and to educate the public in a positive fashion. National and state
1. Schwitzer G. The
magical medical media tour. JAMA. 1992;267:1969-1971.
To the Editor.\p=m-\Iread Mr Schwitzer's1 article with interest. The issues that Schwitzer raises are real and should be of special concern to all health professionals. These issues form the basis for the establishment of the National Association of Physician Broadcasters (NAPB), the nation's oldest and largest organization supporting physicians in print and electronic media. The NAPB sponsors two educational meetings per year in conjunction with the American Medical Association Health Reporting Conference each spring and the American Medical Association Science Reporters Conference in the fall. At the fall 1991 meeting, at which Schwitzer was a featured panelist, we explored the ethical issues that he has raised in his article: those touching on accuracy, independence, personal rights, continuity of care, and a thoughtful process in content selection. We also released at that time the NAPB Code of Ethics, which includes 25 credos that clearly set the standard that Schwitzer requests of those involved in health broadcasting. As the primary organization representing physicians in health broadcasting, we believe that health reporters should have a strong foundation in medical science. We believe that information must be up-to-date and accurate, and that areas of controversy or doubt should be clearly defined and com¬ municated with conflicting points of view appropriately rep¬ resented. We believe that in the pursuit of accuracy and truth, there is a need to function in a fully creditable and independent manner with all sources of information fully disclosed. We acknowledge the right of our audience, as ex¬ tensions of our own patients, to a standard of interaction that is respectful, courteous, and consistent with the teachings of the profession of medicine. We believe that content selection should be based on its potential positive impact on America's health and that selection of material based on sensationalism or
ratings appeal unaccompanied by redeemable, positive
health impact should be avoided. We believe that the eval¬ uation of cost and quality of health care should be integral to the content development process and that emphasis should be placed on educational and instructional design with clearly defined health missions. Finally, we are committed to tying our activities to existing community health resources in the hopes that such networking might enhance our program's beneficial effects. In summary, Schwitzer's article raises real and legitimate concerns. The NAPB over the past 10 years, through its association with leaders in health journalism such as Schwit¬ zer, through collaborative working relationships with orga¬ nizations such as the American Medical Association on projects directly related to enhancing America's health and Wellness, and through the establishment of a Code of Ethics that sets a high standard for health broadcasting, has attempted to provide leadership in this very important arena. Michael C. Magee, MD National Association of Physician Broadcasters Chicago, Ill 1. Schwitzer G. The
These letters
were
magical
medical media tour. JAMA. 1992;267:1969-1971.
shown to Mr
Schwitzer, who declined to reply.—Ed.
Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a Karolinska Institutet University Library User on 05/24/2015
