Irish Media Coverage of COVID-19 Evidence-Based Research Reports From One National Agency

Document Type : Original Article


1 Health Research Board Centre for Primary Care Research, Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland, Dublin 2, Ireland

2 Health Information and Quality Authority, George’s Court, George’s Lane, Dublin 7, Ireland

3 Department of Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Trinity College Dublin, Trinity Health Sciences, Dublin 8, Ireland


How research findings are presented through domestic news can influence behaviour and risk perceptions, particularly during emergencies such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Monitoring media communications to track misinformation and find information gaps is an important component of emergency risk communication. Therefore, this study investigated the traditional media coverage of nine selected COVID-19 evidencebased research reports and associated press releases (PRs) published during the initial phases of the pandemic (April to July 2020) by one national agency.

NVivo was used for summative content analysis. ‘Key messages’ from each research report were proposed and 488 broadcast, print, and online media sources were coded at the phrase level. Manifest content was coded and counted to locate patterns in the data (what and how many) while latent content was analysed to further investigate these patterns (why and how). This included the coding of the presence of political and public health actors in coverage.

Coverage largely did not misrepresent the results of the reports, however, selective reporting and the variability in the use of quotes from governmental and public health stakeholders changed and contextualised results in different manners than perhaps originally intended in the PR. Reports received varying levels of media attention. Coverage focused on more ‘human-interest’ stories (eg, spread of COVID-19 by children and excess mortality) as opposed to more technical reports (eg, focusing on viral load, antibodies, testing, etc).

Our findings provide a case-study of European media coverage of evidence reports produced by a national agency. Results highlighted several strengths and weaknesses of current communication efforts.


Main Subjects

  1. Dong E, Du H, Gardner L. An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020;20(5):533-534. doi:1016/s1473-3099(20)30120-1
  2. Sohrabi C, Alsafi Z, O'Neill N, et al. World Health Organization declares global emergency: a review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Int J Surg. 2020;76:71-76. doi:1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034
  3. World Health Organization. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) – World Health Organization. Accessed January 18, 2021. Published 2021.
  4. Tangcharoensathien V, Calleja N, Nguyen T, et al. Framework for managing the COVID-19 infodemic: methods and results of an online, crowdsourced WHO technical consultation. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(6):e19659. doi:2196/19659
  5. World Health Organization. Call for Action: Managing the Infodemic. Accessed January 13, 2021. Published November 12, 2020.
  6. Bolsen T, Palm R, Kingsland JT. Framing the origins of COVID-19. Sci Commun. 2020;42(5):562-585. doi:1177/1075547020953603
  7. Kowalski J, Marchlewska M, Molenda Z, Górska P, Gawęda Ł. Adherence to safety and self-isolation guidelines, conspiracy and paranoia-like beliefs during COVID-19 pandemic in Poland - associations and moderators. Psychiatry Res. 2020;294:113540. doi:1016/j.psychres.2020.113540
  8. Shahsavari S, Holur P, Wang T, Tangherlini TR, Roychowdhury V. Conspiracy in the time of corona: automatic detection of emerging COVID-19 conspiracy theories in social media and the news. J Comput Soc Sci. 2020:1-39. doi:1007/s42001-020-00086-5
  9. Grimes DR. On the viability of conspiratorial beliefs. PLoS One. 2016;11(1):e0147905. doi:1371/journal.pone.0147905
  10. Romer D, Jamieson KH. Conspiracy theories as barriers to controlling the spread of COVID-19 in the U.S. Soc Sci Med. 2020;263:113356. doi:1016/j.socscimed.2020.113356
  11. Allington D, Duffy B, Wessely S, Dhavan N, Rubin J. Health-protective behaviour, social media usage and conspiracy belief during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Psychol Med. 2021;51(10):1763-1769. doi:1017/s003329172000224x
  12. Kim HK, Ahn J, Atkinson L, Kahlor LA. Effects of COVID-19 misinformation on information seeking, avoidance, and processing: a multicountry comparative study. Sci Commun. 2020;42(5):586-615. doi:1177/1075547020959670
  13. Lee YR, Lee JY, Park IH, et al. The relationships among media usage regarding COVID-19, knowledge about infection, and anxiety: structural model analysis. J Korean Med Sci. 2020;35(48):e426. doi:3346/jkms.2020.35.e426
  14. Siebenhaar KU, Köther AK, Alpers GW. Dealing with the COVID-19 infodemic: distress by information, information avoidance, and compliance with preventive measures. Front Psychol. 2020;11:567905. doi:3389/fpsyg.2020.567905
  15. Melki J, Tamim H, Hadid D, et al. Media exposure and health behavior during pandemics: the mediating effect of perceived knowledge and fear on compliance with COVID-19 prevention measures. Health Commun. 2020:1-11. doi:1080/10410236.2020.1858564
  16. Sallam M, Dababseh D, Yaseen A, et al. COVID-19 misinformation: mere harmless delusions or much more? a knowledge and attitude cross-sectional study among the general public residing in Jordan. PLoS One. 2020;15(12):e0243264. doi:1371/journal.pone.0243264
  17. Qazi A, Qazi J, Naseer K, et al. Analyzing situational awareness through public opinion to predict adoption of social distancing amid pandemic COVID-19. J Med Virol. 2020;92(7):849-855. doi:1002/jmv.25840
  18. Yan Q, Tang Y, Yan D, et al. Impact of media reports on the early spread of COVID-19 epidemic. J Theor Biol. 2020;502:110385. doi:1016/j.jtbi.2020.110385
  19. Sandell T, Sebar B, Harris N. Framing risk: communication messages in the Australian and Swedish print media surrounding the 2009 H1N1 pandemic. Scand J Public Health. 2013;41(8):860-865. doi:1177/1403494813498158
  20. Ogbodo JN, Onwe EC, Chukwu J, et al. Communicating health crisis: a content analysis of global media framing of COVID-19. Health Promot Perspect. 2020;10(3):257-269. doi:34172/hpp.2020.40
  21. Parsons Leigh J, Fiest K, Brundin-Mather R, et al. A national cross-sectional survey of public perceptions, knowledge, and behaviors during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv. 2020. doi:1101/2020.07.07.20147413
  22. Riiser K, Helseth S, Haraldstad K, Torbjørnsen A, Richardsen KR. Adolescents' health literacy, health protective measures, and health-related quality of life during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One. 2020;15(8):e0238161. doi:1371/journal.pone.0238161
  23. S. Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Crisis and Emergency Risk Communication: Messages and Audiences. Published 2018.
  24. Taylor JW, Long M, Ashley E, et al. When medical news comes from press releases-a case study of pancreatic cancer and processed meat. PLoS One. 2015;10(6):e0127848. doi:1371/journal.pone.0127848
  25. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Andrews A, Stukel TA. Influence of medical journal press releases on the quality of associated newspaper coverage: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2012;344:d8164. doi:1136/bmj.d8164
  26. Yavchitz A, Boutron I, Bafeta A, et al. Misrepresentation of randomized controlled trials in press releases and news coverage: a cohort study. PLoS Med. 2012;9(9):e1001308. doi:1371/journal.pmed.1001308
  27. Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, et al. The association between exaggeration in health related science news and academic press releases: retrospective observational study. BMJ. 2014;349:g7015. doi:1136/bmj.g7015
  28. Sesagiri Raamkumar A, Tan SG, Wee HL. Measuring the outreach efforts of public health authorities and the public response on Facebook during the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020: cross-country comparison. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(5):e19334. doi:2196/19334
  29. Callaway E. Will the pandemic permanently alter scientific publishing? Nature. 2020;582(7811):167-168. doi:1038/d41586-020-01520-4
  30. Else H. How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing - in seven charts. Nature. 2020;588(7839):553. doi:1038/d41586-020-03564-y
  31. Zdravkovic M, Berger-Estilita J, Zdravkovic B, Berger D. Scientific quality of COVID-19 and SARS CoV-2 publications in the highest impact medical journals during the early phase of the pandemic: a case control study. PLoS One. 2020;15(11):e0241826. doi:1371/journal.pone.0241826
  32. Jung RG, Di Santo P, Clifford C, et al. Methodological quality of COVID-19 clinical research. Nat Commun. 2021;12(1):943. doi:1038/s41467-021-21220-5
  33. Bramstedt KA. The carnage of substandard research during the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for quality. J Med Ethics. 2020;46(12):803-807. doi:1136/medethics-2020-106494
  34. Elgendy IY, Nimri N, Barakat AF, Ibrahim J, Mandrola J, Foy A. A systematic bias assessment of top-cited full-length original clinical investigations related to COVID-19. Eur J Intern Med. 2021;86:104-106. doi:1016/j.ejim.2021.01.018
  35. Raynaud M, Zhang H, Louis K, et al. COVID-19-related medical research: a meta-research and critical appraisal. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):1. doi:1186/s12874-020-01190-w
  36. Quinn TJ, Burton JK, Carter B, et al. Following the science? comparison of methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 and other research from the first wave of the pandemic. BMC Med. 2021;19(1):46. doi:1186/s12916-021-01920-x
  37. Wynants L, Van Calster B, Collins GS, et al. Prediction models for diagnosis and prognosis of COVID-19: systematic review and critical appraisal. BMJ. 2020;369:m1328. doi:1136/bmj.m1328
  38. Tricco AC, Garritty CM, Boulos L, et al. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;126:177-183. doi:1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.029
  39. Lee ST. Predictors of H1N1 influenza pandemic news coverage: explicating the relationships between framing and news release selection. Int J Strateg Commun. 2014;8(4):294-310. doi:1080/1553118x.2014.913596
  40. COVID-19 Publications. Accessed August 18, 2020. Published 2021.
  41. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, KameL C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews. Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group; 2020.
  42. Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, King VJ, Tricco AC. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(1):e001178. doi:1136/bmjgh-2018-001178
  43. Communicable Diseases Network Australia (CDNA). CDNA National Guidelines for Public Health Units. 2021. p. 65.
  44. European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC). Guidance for Discharge and Ending of Isolation of People with COVID-19. Published 2020.
  45. Jones H, Gendre A, Walshe P, et al. The Royal College of surgeons multidisciplinary guidelines on elective tracheostomy insertion in COVID-19 ventilated patients. Surgeon. 2021;19(5):e265-e269. doi:1016/j.surge.2020.12.002
  46. United Arab Emirates Department of Health. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Serologic Test Recommendations. United Arab Emirates; 2020. p. 16.
  47. World Health Organization (WHO). Diagnostic Testing for SARS-CoV-2: Interim Guidance. WHO; 2020. p. 20.
  48. HIQA (@hiqaireland). Instagram Photos and Videos. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  49. HIQA (@HIQA) / Twitter. Twitter. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  50. Facebook. Accessed September 9, 2020.
  51. HIQA - Health Information and Quality Authority: Overview. LinkedIn. Accessed September 7, 2020.
  52. Rue Point Media. Home. Rue Point Media. 2021. Accessed October 29, 2020.
  53. Real-time news data for industry leaders. Opoint Technology. Accessed September 27, 2021.
  54. TVEyes - Search Broadcast Television and Radio. Accessed September 27, 2021.
  55. Welcome to Apache Lucene. Accessed September 27, 2021.
  56. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary for COVID-19 Viral Load over Course of Infection. Ireland; 2020.
  57. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary for Natural History of COVID-19 in Children. Published 2020.
  58. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary for Average Length of Stay in the Intensive Care Unit for COVID-19. Published 2020.
  59. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary for Spread of COVID-19 by Children. Published 2020.
  60. Health Information and Quality Authority. Rapid HTA of Alternative Diagnostic Testing for Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Published 2020.
  61. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary for Placental Transfer of Antibodies. Published 2020.
  62. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary of the Immune Response Following Infection with SARS-CoV-2 or Other Human Coronaviruses. Published 2020.
  63. Health Information and Quality Authority. Evidence Summary for the Infectiousness of Individuals Reinfected with COVID-19. Published 2020.
  64. Health Information and Quality Authority. Analysis of Excess All-Cause Mortality in Ireland during the COVID-19 Epidemic. Published 2020.
  65. Hsieh HF, Shannon SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15(9):1277-1288. doi:1177/1049732305276687
  66. Morgan DL. Qualitative content analysis: a guide to paths not taken. Qual Health Res. 1993;3(1):112-121. doi:1177/104973239300300107
  67. Kleinheksel AJ, Rockich-Winston N, Tawfik H, Wyatt TR. Demystifying content analysis. Am J Pharm Educ. 2020;84(1):7113. doi:5688/ajpe7113
  68. Qualitative Data Analysis Software. Accessed September 9, 2020. Published 2021.
  69. Graneheim UH, Lundman B. Qualitative content analysis in nursing research: concepts, procedures and measures to achieve trustworthiness. Nurse Educ Today. 2004;24(2):105-112. doi:1016/j.nedt.2003.10.001
  70. Ali SH, Foreman J, Tozan Y, Capasso A, Jones AM, DiClemente RJ. Trends and predictors of COVID-19 information sources and their relationship with knowledge and beliefs related to the pandemic: nationwide cross-sectional study. JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2020;6(4):e21071. doi:2196/21071
  71. Falcone R, Sapienza A. How COVID-19 changed the information needs of Italian citizens. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(19):6988. doi:3390/ijerph17196988
  72. Buhse S, Rahn AC, Bock M, Mühlhauser I. Causal interpretation of correlational studies - analysis of medical news on the website of the official journal for German physicians. PLoS One. 2018;13(5):e0196833. doi:1371/journal.pone.0196833
  73. Lee ST, Basnyat I. From press release to news: mapping the framing of the 2009 H1N1 A influenza pandemic. Health Commun. 2013;28(2):119-132. doi:1080/10410236.2012.658550
  74. D'Angelo P. News framing as a multiparadigmatic research program: a response to Entman. J Commun. 2002;52(4):870-888. doi:1111/j.1460-2466.2002.tb02578.x
  75. Semetko H, Valkenburg P. Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. J Commun. 2000;50(2):93-109. doi:1111/j.1460-2466.2000.tb02843.x
  76. Beyer A, Figenschou TU. Human-interest fatigue: audience evaluations of a massive emotional story. Int J Commun. 2014;8:1944-1963.
  77. Le HT, Nguyen DN, Beydoun AS, et al. Demand for health information on COVID-19 among Vietnamese. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17(12):4377. doi:3390/ijerph17124377
  78. Boukes M, Boomgaarden HG, Moorman M, de Vreese CH. Political news with a personal touch: How human interest framing indirectly affects policy attitudes. Journal Mass Commun Q. 2015;92(1):121-141. doi:1177/1077699014558554
  79. Crabu S, Giardullo P, Sciandra A, Neresini F. Politics overwhelms science in the COVID-19 pandemic: evidence from the whole coverage of the Italian quality newspapers. PLoS One. 2021;16(5):e0252034. doi:1371/journal.pone.0252034
  80. Hart PS, Chinn S, Soroka S. Politicization and polarization in COVID-19 news coverage. Sci Commun. 2020;42(5):679-697. doi:1177/1075547020950735
  81. COVID Behaviors Dashboard - Johns Hopkins Center for Communication Programs. Accessed September 29, 2021.
  82. Bossema FG, Burger P, Bratton L, et al. Expert quotes and exaggeration in health news: a retrospective quantitative content analysis. Wellcome Open Res. 2019;4:56. doi:12688/wellcomeopenres.15147.2
  83. Bott L, Bratton L, Diaconu B, et al. Caveats in science-based news stories communicate caution without lowering interest. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2019;25(4):517-542. doi:1037/xap0000232
  84. Sumner P, Vivian-Griffiths S, Boivin J, et al. Exaggerations and caveats in press releases and health-related science news. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0168217. doi:1371/journal.pone.0168217
  85. Siedner MJ, Gandhi RT. Proposing minimum requirements for announcing clinical trial results during the COVID-19 pandemic. Clin Infect Dis. 2021;72(7):1265-1267. doi:1093/cid/ciaa945
  86. Ashoorkhani M, Majdzadeh R, Nedjat S, Gholami J. Promoting the quality of health research-based news: introduction of a tool. Int J Prev Med. 2017;8:87. doi:4103/ijpvm.IJPVM_16_17
  87. Pearman O, Boykoff M, Osborne-Gowey J, et al. COVID-19 media coverage decreasing despite deepening crisis. Lancet Planet Health. 2021;5(1):e6-e7. doi:1016/s2542-5196(20)30303-x
  88. Reuters Institute Digital News Report. Accessed September 29, 2021. Published May 23, 2020.
  89. Ahmad AR, Murad HR. The impact of social media on panic during the COVID-19 pandemic in Iraqi Kurdistan: online questionnaire study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(5):e19556. doi:2196/19556
  90. Boucher JC, Cornelson K, Benham JL, et al. Analyzing social media to explore the attitudes and behaviors following the announcement of successful COVID-19 vaccine Trials: Infodemiology Study. JMIR Infodemiology. 2021;1(1):e28800. doi:2196/28800
Volume 11, Issue 11
November 2022
Pages 2464-2475
  • Receive Date: 31 May 2021
  • Revise Date: 17 October 2021
  • Accept Date: 11 December 2021
  • First Publish Date: 13 December 2021