By Leila Hadou, The Guardian, 7th May 2014
Summary of the article
A report recently published by the World Health Organisation show deaths from preventable causes related to pregnancy and childbirth have dropped by 45% since 1980. However, 800 women still die every day from complications, 99% of these occurring in developing countries. The key challenge is suggested to be the lack of accurate data. The number of women dying and the reasons behind it, often remain unrecorded and unreported. Improving data collection worldwide remains a priority, according to health groups.
Summary of the review
The article was on a relevant topic and well written. There was an abundance of sources and the graphics illustrated the issue rather well. However, there was a lack of contextualising the data and explaining what the numbers actually meant i.e. how much is a hundred thousand or a thousand in comparison to total population numbers.
1. Is the article factually accurate?
Yes- All the data comes from the World Health Organisation (WHO) report and were used correctly.
2. Is there a conflict of interest?
No- As far as the Guardian’s trainee journalist Leila Haddou’s past employment shows, she did not work in any organisation that would result in a conflict of interest. Her gender is not an issue when writing objectively on a female topic. The World Health Organisation who issued the report is the directing and coordinating authority for health within the United Nations system. It is responsible for shaping the health research agenda and monitoring and assessing health trends and therefore there is no conflict of interest.
3. Is it newsworthy?
Yes- While complications during pregnancy and deaths during childbirth are much more prevalent in developing countries, it is an issue that could potentially affect half the world’s population, making it of interest to the readers.
4. Are the sources authoritative?
The source of the report is the World Health Organisation which an international organisation with a reputation for solid data. It was published in the Lancet which is a well established journal. They’ve also quoted high ranking officials at UNICEF and WHO, increasing the authoritativeness of the information.
5. Have they used two or more sources?
Yes, they have two independent experts, Dr Geeta Rao Gupta, deputy executive director of UNICEF and Tim Evans, Director of Health, Nutrition and Population for the world bank group. Dr Marleen Temmerman, Director of reproductive health and research at WHO is also quoted on the report.
6. Is the headline misleading?
No- the headline summarises the subject of the article well.
7. Is the article sensational or scaremongering?
No- they’ve clearly stated a large drop in deaths by the first sentence. Some of the numbers are shocking, such as 33 deaths/hour but the calculations is sound and the writer is not hyping the rest of the statistics.
8. Does it explain concepts properly?
There were not many concepts to be explained in this article. When the writer used the term ‘global Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR)’ it was immediately explained. It did not explain HIV, malaria or AIDS but this could be assumed to be a term understood by the readers.
9. Is the article well written and engaging?
The article is clearly written but it is not very engaging. It reads more like a general summary of the report with quotes from experts. While the information is important enough to be read even without being very engaging, it would have helped to contextualise the data a bit more. After a few sentences, the large numbers tend to lose their meaning.
10. Do the graphics help illustrate the story?
The graphs and tables were clear and simple, easy to take in and understand. Another possibility would have been a map with shades of red to indicate the severity of the problem on a global context but bar charts also worked well and gave a more accurate image of the numbers.