Whose deaths matter? Mortality, advocacy, and attention to disease in the mass media

Diseases capture public attention in varied ways and to varying degrees. In this essay, we use a unique data set that we have collected about print and broadcast media attention to seven diseases across nineteen years in order to address two questions. First, how (if at all) is mortality related to attention? Second, how (if at all) is advocacy, in the form of organized interest group activity, related to media attention? Our analysis of the cross-disease and cross-temporal variation in media attention suggests that who suffers from a disease as well as how many suffer are critical factors in explaining why some diseases get more attention than others. In particular, our data reveal that both the print and the broadcast media tend to be much less attentive to diseases that disproportionately burden blacks relative to whites. We also find a positive link between the size of organizational communities that take an interest in disease and media attention, though this finding depends on the characteristics of those communities. Finally, this study also reveals the limitations of relying on single-disease case studies-and particularly HIV/AIDS-to understand how and why disease captures public attention. Many previous inferences about media attention that have been drawn from the case of AIDS are not reflective of the attention allocated to other diseases.     

Cannabinoid concentrations in hair from documented cannabis users

Fifty-three head hair specimens were collected from 38 males with a history of cannabis use documented by questionnaire, urinalysis and controlled, double blind administration of delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in an institutional review board approved protocol. The subjects completed a questionnaire indicating daily cannabis use (N=18) or non-daily use, i.e. one to five cannabis cigarettes per week (N=20). Drug use was also documented by a positive cannabinoid urinalysis, a hair specimen was collected from each subject and they were admitted to a closed research unit. Additional hair specimens were collected following smoking of two 2.7% THC cigarettes (N=13) or multiple oral doses totaling 116 mg THC (N=2). Cannabinoid concentrations in all hair specimens were determined by ELISA and GCMSMS. Pre- and post-dose detection rates did not differ statistically, therefore, all 53 specimens were considered as one group for further comparisons. Nineteen specimens (36%) had no detectable THC or 11-nor-9-carboxy-THC (THCCOOH) at the GCMSMS limits of quantification (LOQ) of 1.0 and 0.1 pg/mg hair, respectively. Two specimens (3.8%) had measurable THC only, 14 (26%) THCCOOH only, and 18 (34%) both cannabinoids. Detection rates were significantly different (p<0.05, Fishers' exact test) between daily cannabis users (85%) and non-daily users (52%). There was no difference in detection rates between African-American and Caucasian subjects (p>0.3, Fisher's exact test). For specimens with detectable cannabinoids, concentrations ranged from 3.4 to >100 pg THC/mg and 0.10 to 7.3 pg THCCOOH/mg hair. THC and THCCOOH concentrations were positively correlated (r=0.38, p<0.01, Pearson's product moment correlation). Using an immunoassay cutoff concentration of 5 pg THC equiv./mg hair, 83% of specimens that screened positive were confirmed by GCMSMS at a cutoff concentration of 0.1 pg THCCOOH/mg hair.