Challenging stereotypes and legitimating fat: an analysis of obese people's views on news media reporting guidelines and promoting body diversity

© The Author(s) 2013. This article contributes to scholarship on the cultural politics of obesity by providing insights into how people considered ‘obese’ think news media reporting should be improved and their views on ideas such as reporting guidelines and promoting body diversity. A thematic analysis of interview data identified the following themes: ‘Challenging stereotypes’, ‘The limits of news’, ‘Individual responsibility’ and ‘Legitimating fat’. These themes capture the divergence in views and reflect differences in how people construct obesity and conceive the influences of media on audiences. Situated in the context of the contested science and news frames surrounding obesity, the analysis also engages with wider debates about the potentially unintended consequences of seeking to challenge stigma. We conclude that media and policy discourses need to reflect a diversity of ways of framing obesity if the views of obese people are to be included.

Time relevance, citation of reporting guidelines, and breadth of literature search in systematic reviews in orthodontics

INTRODUCTION As the importance of systematic review (SR) conclusions relies upon the scientific rigor of methods and the currency of evidence, we aimed to investigate the currency of orthodontic SRs using as proxy the time from the initial search to publication. Additionally, SR information regarding reporting guidelines, registration, and literature searches were recorded when available. MATERIALS AND METHODS A systematic PubMed search was carried out using the Clinical Queries page to identify orthodontic SRs cited between 1 January 2008 and 7 November 2013. Data related to reporting guidelines, review registration, dates of review processing, literature search, and abstract reporting were retrieved and classified by journal type. Survival analysis was used to assess the time to reach predefined manuscript stages for orthodontic and non-orthodontic journals. RESULTS One hundred twenty seven of the originally identified 585 SRs were considered eligible. The median interval from search until publication was 13.2 months (interquartile range: IQR = 9.7 months) irrespective of the journal type. There was evidence (P = 0.05) that SRs published by non-orthodontic journals appeared in PubMed faster than in orthodontic journals (non-orthodontic: median = 6.5 months; IQR = 5.7 months; orthodontic: median = 10.2 months; IQR = 5.6 months) from submission to publication and from acceptance to publication (non-orthodontic: median = 1.5 months; IQR = 2.4 months; orthodontic: median = 6.0 months; IQR = 6.2 months; P < 0.001). More than half of these SRs did not cite adherence to any reporting guidelines, whereas all but five studies were not prospectively registered. Search of unpublished research was undertaken in approximately 21 per cent and 29 per cent of the SRs published in non-orthodontic and orthodontic periodicals, respectively. CONCLUSIONS This study indicates that SR users should be aware that median time for orthodontic SRs from search to publication is 13.2 months. SRs published in non-orthodontic journals are likely to be more current in terms of submission until time to publication and acceptance until time to publication compared with those published in orthodontic journals.

Environmental reporting in the Australian mining industry : complying with regulation or meeting international best practice?

It is nearly 10 years since the introduction of s 299(1)(f) Corporations Act , which requires the disclosure of information regarding a company's environmental performance within its annual report. This provision has generated considerable debate in the years since its introduction, fundamentally between proponents of either a voluntary or mandatory environmental reporting framework. This study examines the adequacy of the current regulatory framework. The environmental reporting practices of 24 listed companies in the resources industries are assessed relative to a standard set by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) Sustainability Reporting Guidelines. These Guidelines are argued to represent "international best practice" in environmental reporting and a "scorecard" approach is used to score the quality of disclosure according to this voluntary benchmark. Larger companies in the sample tend to report environmental information over and above the level required by legislation. Some, but not all companies present a stand-alone environmental/sustainability report. However, smaller companies provide minimal information in compliance with s 299(1)(f) . The findings indicate that "international best practice" environmental reporting is unlikely to be achieved by Australian companies under the current regulatory framework. In the current regulatory environment that scrutinises s 299(1)(f) , this article provides some preliminary evidence of the quality of disclosures generated in the Australian market.

Developing a Reporting Guideline for Social and Psychological Intervention Trials

Social and psychological interventions are often complex. Understanding randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of these complex interventions requires a detailed description of the interventions tested and the methods used to evaluate them; however, RCT reports often omit, or inadequately report, this information. Incomplete and inaccurate reporting hinders the optimal use of research, wastes resources, and fails to meet ethical obligations to research participants and consumers. In this article, we explain how reporting guidelines have improved the quality of reports in medicine and describe the ongoing development of a new reporting guideline for RCTs: Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-SPI (an extension for social and psychological interventions). We invite readers to participate in the project by visiting our website, in order to help us reach the best-informed consensus on these guidelines (http://tinyurl.com/CONSORT-study).

“What matters?”: The case of sustainability reporting in Spain and Portugal

This project explores the case of Sustainability Reporting in Spain and Portugal and the recently launched new generation of Global Reporting Initiative Guidelines. The sample of the study is composed of companies included in the “GRI Report list 1999-2015”. In particular 2013 onwards 51 companies that published their G4 Report are taken into consideration. An indirect study is conducted based on the content of the sustainability reports of companies that implemented the Global Report Initiatives (GRI) reporting guidelines in order to identify focus areas of sustainability reporting in Spain and Portugal, analyzing trends and patterns relevant for observation. The project also promotes a discussion of the usability of the G4 guidelines and the adoption of materiality definition.

The ethical, social and environmental reporting-performance portrayal gap

The purpose of this article is twofold. First, it assesses in detail the extent to which corporate reporting on ethical, social and environmental issues reflects corporate performance in case study company Alpha. This “reporting-performance” portrayal gap is a key measure of the extent to which an organisation is accountable to its stakeholders. Alpha's disclosures concerning its ethical, social and environmental performance for the years 1993 and 1999 were compared with information obtained on Alpha's performance from other sources. Two different pictures of performance emerged leading to the conclusion that, in the case of Alpha, reports do not demonstrate a high level of accountability to key stakeholder groups on ethical, social and environmental issues. Of particular concern is the lack of “completeness” of reporting. Second, the article assesses the potential of recent standards or guidelines developed by the Global Reporting Initiative (GRI) and the Institute of Social and Ethical AccountAbility (AccountAbility) as well as the industry's own “responsible care” initiative to reduce this “reporting-performance” portrayal gap and improve corporate accountability. The conclusions point to the need for other measures to improve accountability including mandatory reporting guidelines, better developed audit guidelines, a mandatory audit requirement for MNCs and a radical overhaul of corporate governance systems.

Blinded by PRISMA: are systematic reviewers focusing on PRISMA and ignoring other guidelines?

BACKGROUND PRISMA guidelines have been developed to improve the reporting of systematic reviews (SRs). Other reporting guidelines and techniques to assess methodological quality of SRs have been developed. We aimed to assess the frequency of the use of reporting and other guidelines in SRs to assess whether PRISMA is being used inappropriately as a substitute for other relevant guidelines. METHODS Web of Knowledge was searched to identify articles citing the PRISMA guidelines over a 12-month period. The use of reporting guidelines (including PRISMA and MOOSE) and tools for assessing methodological quality (including QUADAS) was assessed. Factors associated with appropriate use of guidelines including review type, field of publication and involvement of a methodologist were investigated. RESULTS Over the 12-month period, 701 SRs were identified. MOOSE guidelines were cited in just 17% of epidemiologic reviews; QUADAS or QUADAS-2 was referred to in just 40% of diagnostic SRs. In the multivariable analysis, medical field of publication and methodologist involvement (OR = 1.97, 95% CI: 1.37, 2.83) were significant predictors of appropriate use of guidelines. Inclusion of a meta-analysis resulted in 73% higher odds of appropriate usage of systematic review guidelines (OR = 1.73, 95% CI: 1.22, 2.35). CONCLUSIONS Usage of SR reporting guidelines and tools for assessment of methodological quality other than PRISMA may be under-utilized with negative implications both for the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews.

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for respondent-driven sampling studies: "STROBE-RDS" statement.

OBJECTIVES Respondent-driven sampling (RDS) is a new data collection methodology used to estimate characteristics of hard-to-reach groups, such as the HIV prevalence in drug users. Many national public health systems and international organizations rely on RDS data. However, RDS reporting quality and available reporting guidelines are inadequate. We carried out a systematic review of RDS studies and present Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology for RDS Studies (STROBE-RDS), a checklist of essential items to present in RDS publications, justified by an explanation and elaboration document. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We searched the MEDLINE (1970-2013), EMBASE (1974-2013), and Global Health (1910-2013) databases to assess the number and geographical distribution of published RDS studies. STROBE-RDS was developed based on STROBE guidelines, following Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. RESULTS RDS has been used in over 460 studies from 69 countries, including the USA (151 studies), China (70), and India (32). STROBE-RDS includes modifications to 12 of the 22 items on the STROBE checklist. The two key areas that required modification concerned the selection of participants and statistical analysis of the sample. CONCLUSION STROBE-RDS seeks to enhance the transparency and utility of research using RDS. If widely adopted, STROBE-RDS should improve global infectious diseases public health decision making.

Reporting experiments to satisfy professionals information needs

Although the aim of empirical software engineering is to provide evidence for selecting the appropriate technology, it appears that there is a lack of recognition of this work in industry. Results from empirical research only rarely seem to find their way to company decision makers. If information relevant for software managers is provided in reports on experiments, such reports can be considered as a source of information for them when they are faced with making decisions about the selection of software engineering technologies. To bridge this communication gap between researchers and professionals, we propose characterizing the information needs of software managers in order to show empirical software engineering researchers which information is relevant for decision-making and thus enable them to make this information available. We empirically investigated decision makers? information needs to identify which information they need to judge the appropriateness and impact of a software technology. We empirically developed a model that characterizes these needs. To ensure that researchers provide relevant information when reporting results from experiments, we extended existing reporting guidelines accordingly.We performed an experiment to evaluate our model with regard to its effectiveness. Software managers who read an experiment report according to the proposed model judged the technology?s appropriateness significantly better than those reading a report about the same experiment that did not explicitly address their information needs. Our research shows that information regarding a technology, the context in which it is supposed to work, and most importantly, the impact of this technology on development costs and schedule as well as on product quality is crucial for decision makers.

Reporting experiments to satisfy professionals’information needs

Although the aim of empirical software engineering is to provide evidence for selecting the appropriate technology, it appears that there is a lack of recognition of this work in industry. Results from empirical research only rarely seem to find their way to company decision makers. If information relevant for software managers is provided in reports on experiments, such reports can be considered as a source of information for them when they are faced with making decisions about the selection of software engineering technologies. To bridge this communication gap between researchers and professionals, we propose characterizing the information needs of software managers in order to show empirical software engineering researchers which information is relevant for decision-making and thus enable them to make this information available. We empirically investigated decision makers? information needs to identify which information they need to judge the appropriateness and impact of a software technology. We empirically developed a model that characterizes these needs. To ensure that researchers provide relevant information when reporting results from experiments, we extended existing reporting guidelines accordingly. We performed an experiment to evaluate our model with regard to its effectiveness. Software managers who read an experiment report according to the proposed model judged the technology?s appropriateness significantly better than those reading a report about the same experiment that did not explicitly address their information needs. Our research shows that information regarding a technology, the context in which it is supposed to work, and most importantly, the impact of this technology on development costs and schedule as well as on product quality is crucial for decision makers.

‘We report the world as it is, not as we want it to be’: Journalistic negotiation of news routines, roles and responsibilities when reporting on suicide

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-08