Learning the facts behind health information can equip you to make better decisions.

“A recent study indicates that exercising daily could cut a woman’s chances of developing breast cancer.”

Every day, it seems, there’s a scientific study reported in the media—be it the local newspaper, nightly news, consumer magazines or the Internet—announcing new findings that could impact our health.   With all the health news accessible to us, you would think we would be a nation of experts. But, in reality, the opposite is true because so much information reported is confusing and even incorrect.

As breast cancer survivors seeking ways to prevent reoccurrence, how do we know which health studies are valid and apply to us? How do we determine which lifestyle behaviors need to be changed to keep cancer at bay? Do we need to exercise more? Eat less red meat? Avoid second-hand smoke?

The starting point is understanding how health-related research is conducted, and the limitations and problems that occur in studying humans. As consumers, we need to dig beneath the surface of what’s reported in the media and seek more facts to determine what is realistic for our lives.  By doing so, even if we can’t find the answers ourselves, at least we can be equipped with the right questions to ask our medical providers.

“Readers of any health information need to be aware there is always an element of sensationalism in the media because that's how they sell their respective publications,” says Gregg Orloff Ph.D., senior lecturer in biology at Emory University in Atlanta. “Consumers need to be able to interpret a study, so they can factor this information into their decision-making.”

So how do health consumers determine a study’s validity and if its findings are applicable to them? Orloff advises readers to look closer at several factors:

“It’s expensive to follow 20,000 people over 20 years,” he says. “As a result, researchers attempt to extract as much information from a study as possible and then use the findings for multiple purposes.”

A study may be designed to find out one piece of information (whether smoking increases the risk of lung cancer), but other researchers can re-analyze the same data asking different questions and come up with additional conclusions (smoking causes an increase in heart attacks).

“You need to look at the information collected and make sure that researchers are isolating the information you are interested in from other study conclusions. This is difficult to accomplish--it’s hard to analyze one single thing because humans are complex,” Orloff explains.  “It could be something other than what is being studied that is contributing to outcome.

“For example, let’s say you’re looking at the affect exercise has on breast cancer. You conduct a study involving 2,000 people and look at those who exercise five times a week, those who exercise one to three-times a week, and those who don’t exercise at all. Then, you observe the rate of breast cancer occurrence over time. Your may find that those who exercised five times a week had fewer occurrences of breast cancer than those who didn’t exercise at all. But, what do you think the chances are that people who exercise a lot also have a healthier diet than those who don’t? So, another factor – diet, which is not what the study is about – may play a role in the study’s results.

“It’s a matter of asking the right questions about the study,” he says.  

In order to interpret the findings of a health-related study, consumers need to understand the nature of research and what it entails.  Orloff advises people to consider the following questions when giving credence to a study’s results:

• How reliable is the information that was gathered from participants?  People can make mistakes in recalling lifestyle choices and their family’s health history, which can affect a study’s outcome
• How many people did the study involve? The larger the study, the more credible the information. If the study was not conducted on a large enough population, then you should hold off making a conclusion
• What was the length of time it was conducted?  For example, if a study about smoking and cancer is conducted over five years, researchers will observe very little impact on their subjects. However, if a researcher follows this same group over 20 years, they will see a significant impact
• Often, evidence is derived from the preliminary stage (such as three years into a 20-year study), which can be misinterpreted and “hyped” by the press, eager to report the latest news,” Orloff warns. “A longer study is better at providing the actual outcome.”
• Who participated in the study? Socioeconomic and cultural variations between one population and the next can impact results.  A study should represent the larger population in order for researchers to make a general, relevant statement. But this is difficult to achieve
• “The challenge is how do you randomly select a population to study?” Orloff poses.  “For example, let’s say you decide to study people living near a major college campus. But the problem is that a better-educated, higher-income population lives in this area, and that means they make different lifestyle choices (such as more visits to the doctor versus the average population). This is just one factor that will produce a bias in the study’s results.”
• Who conducted the study and what was their motivation?  Is it to convince you to buy their product? Also, understand that testimonials are anecdotal—which is not the same as scientific research.

“Correlation” is an association between two things. For example, men who exercise have fewer incidents of colon cancer. But is it because they exercise or that they are eating a better diet? The association between exercise and lack of colon cancer is real, but is exercise actually causing these positive results? 

“Causation” is a factor that leads to a specific outcome, such as smoking causes lung cancer. You can get lung cancer for other reasons, but scientists have proved that mutagens in smoking do cause lung cancer.

“People often misuse those terms and misinterpret results, making a causation leap because they assume that correlation is the same—but, it’s not,” says Orloff.

Since human studies are difficult and expensive, animal studies can be beneficial since researchers know the genetics and can completely control behavior (how much daylight exposure they receive, diet, hours of sleep). 

“For want of a better model system, animals are valuable,” says Orloff. “People tend to dismiss animal studies, but researchers can still observe the effects of a particular treatment, which could be applicable to humans.

“At the same time, if a treatment works in an animal model, it may or may not work in human, because we’re genetically designed differently.”

With animal models, you need ask, are the doses researchers giving a reasonable amount?

Finally, people need to know how to interpret the statistics, and most people don’t have the education and training to do so.

“Studies ultimately come down to statistics, and most often, reporters and readers don’t understand what those statistics mean,” says Orloff.  “Statistics exist for any study with credibility. So, if you are interested in pursing a lifestyle change based on a study, you need to know the numbers that support the findings--is it statistically significant?”

Medical journals are a good place to find a study’s statistics, Orloff suggests.

“And even if you can’t interpret the data, ultimately, the more information you can access, the better you are armed to ask the right questions of professionals--such as your doctor—who can give you the best answers.”

Gregg Orloff is creator of the award-winning cancer site, CancerQuest www.cancerquest.org which explains the biology of cancer and cancer treatments. He recently received a grant from the Susan G. Komen Foundation to conduct cancer education for caregivers. His wife, Sherry, is also a breast cancer survivor.