Alzheimer’s articles turn into product pitches

Researchers at the University of British Columbia conclude that 20 per cent of online articles purporting to be about preventing Alzheimer’s disease are directly pitching a product like vitamin supplements.

And fully half of websites associated with staving off the degenerative neurological condition were selling other health-related products, services, subscriptions or memberships.

“The few websites offering highquality information can be hard to distinguish from the many low-quality websites offering information that can be potentially harmful,” said Julie Robillard, a UBC neurology professor with the Djavad Mowafaghian Centre for Brain Health.

Robillard’s team looked at 290 online articles found through Google searches on the topic of preventing Alzheimer’s disease. Of those, 24 per cent of articles were hosted on health information websites, 24 per cent on news sites, seven per cent on advocacy group websites, six per cent on science or medical news sites and four per cent on government sites. The lowest scoring articles were more likely to come from health and lifestyle websites, while the highest scoring articles were found on news, science, medical or government websites.

None of the highest-scoring articles endorsed a product.

Here are five things you should think about when doing online health research, according to the study published last week in the Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease:

1.

Can you identify the authors, when the article was written and how to contact them? This allows readers to gauge the qualifications of the writer and also whether the information is up-to-date. “It’s important to be able to trace it back, for individuals to be able to estab- lish the credibility of who wrote the information.”

2.

Is the advice supported by evidence? Believable sources base their conclusions on scientific research including papers published in academic journals or presented at conferences. In contrast, unreliable sources make bold statements without offering background.

3.

Is there an ulterior motive at play? If you’re being told to buy something — whether a supplement, special food or brain exercise plan — the authors have a vested interest in convincing you. Red flags are promises of “cures” or “guarantees” and strong language like: “If you’re serious about the prevention of Alzheimer’s ...” Reputable writing is balanced and more cautious about any recommendations.

4.

The least-reliable articles offer nutritional cures, perhaps because taking a food or supplement seems like the easiest fix. The best information suggested a number of long-term habits that research has linked to lower levels of dementias including: regular exercise, mental challenges, eating whole foods, avoiding head injuries and chronic conditions like high blood pressure.

5.

Robillard is working to make the study’s evaluation tool available to the public next year so that anyone can spot the difference between believable information and self-serving advice. “Sometimes the conflict is there, but you don’t necessarily recognize it if you don’t have the awareness of what to look for,” says Robillard. “Someone might say, ‘In my new book you’ll learn all about the prevention of Alzheimer’s’s disease.’ That’s not as obvious as saying, ‘Buy these pills,” but it’s still a conflict of interest.”