Front. Commun. Frontiers in Communication Front. Commun. 2297-900X Frontiers Media S.A. 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1400753 Communication Systematic Review Health journalism: a bibliometric analysis of research themes and future directions Feng Shi * School of Media and Communication, College of Design and Social Context, RMIT University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Edited by: Vinita Agarwal, Salisbury University, United States

Reviewed by: Douglas Ashwell, Massey University Business School, New Zealand

Catriona Bonfiglioli, University of Technology Sydney, Australia

 *Correspondence: Shi Feng, fengshi1919@gmail.com 29 08 2024 2024 9 1400753 14 03 2024 16 08 2024 Copyright © 2024 Feng. 2024 Feng

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

The body of health journalism research literature remains scattered across various disciplines and requires comprehensive understanding. This study aims to enhance researchers’ comprehension of the field, by presenting a systematic review of SSCI-indexed articles. Findings reveal two peaks in health journalism research from 1994 to 2023: during the 2009 H1N1 influenza and the COVID-19 outbreak. Using bibliographic coupling analysis, it was possible to define 10 major research themes from the review. They were: How health stories are framed in the news; How audiences engage with health information online; How constructive journalism can improve the news reporting of public health crisis; How fact-checking can improve the news reporting of public health crisis; How health stories are framed from science journalism perspective; Why citizen journalism is significant in health news reporting; How health journalists perceive their journalistic role; Who serves as the news source for health news reporting; How health professionals impact health news reporting; and How peace journalism can be used for health news reporting on vulnerable populations. This research provides insights into the current state of health journalism research and outlines potential areas for further exploration in health journalism, spanning topics such as women and other marginalized communities in health reporting.

 health journalism science journalism bibliometric analysis citation analysis bibliographic coupling systematic literature review section-at-acceptance Health Communication Introduction

The rising significance of health journalism is accompanied by growing challenges. While it has the potential to shape public health policy and influence people’s understanding, attitudes, and behavior towards health, it contends with diminishing resources in the evolving media landscape (Bonfiglioli and Cullen, 2017). Reflecting on the history of health journalism, particularly well-documented in Western societies, the early 1980s marked the onset of growing interest in the health-related content of news, advertising, and entertainment media (Kline, 2006). French scholars Patrick Champagne and Dominique Marchetti, research associates of Pierre Bourdieu, observed this trend and characterized the development of health journalism as a subfield situated between the journalism and medical domains during periods of commercialization and politicization in both fields (Champagne and Marchetti, 1999, as cited in Benson, 1999). In other words, health journalism can be seen as the co-production between health and media professionals (Stroobant et al., 2019).

However, only a limited number of research endeavors have undertaken a review of the research themes in health journalism and delved into the evolution of this research field. Moreover, the difficulty of doing so lies in the complex nature of research on health news. Journalism serves as a research object across multiple disciplines—sociology, political economy, cultural studies, health sciences, environmental sciences, etc.—(Nash, 2013). The term health news encompasses an extensive and diverse range of stories and topics, spanning health policy, medical research, and personal lifestyle, which extends beyond scientific and medical news, and often overlaps with political and cultural subjects (Furlan, 2016). Similarly, the term health reporting can sometimes refer to health news (e.g., Briggs and Hallin, 2010), but it is frequently understood as information regarding the population’s health sourced from the public health system (e.g., Broome et al., 2003; Bartig et al., 2019). Moreover, the term health journalism encompasses not only health news coverage and stories but also includes the study of health journalists, newsrooms, and the broader news media industries, constituting a distinct discipline (e.g., Keshvari et al., 2018; Molyneux and Holton, 2015; Schwitzer, 2010). Within the communication discipline, health news occupies the intersection of health communication, scientific communication, and even political communication, given its impact on broader ideologies and social structures (Briggs and Hallin, 2010). Moreover, in journalism studies, health news can be classified as both soft news and hard news because it covers a broader range of topics. The broad spectrum includes hard news topics like new scientific findings in medical research, general public health, health education, and health policy (Mohammadi et al., 2021), as well as soft news stories related to healthy lifestyles (Kristensen and From, 2015). Therefore, the related literature is dispersed and demands thorough comprehension. Earlier efforts by Kline (2006) identified “Challenges to Bodily Health” (p. 46) and “Politics and Sociocultural Context: Public Policy, Controversies, Health Scares, and Ideologies” (p. 49) as two primary topics derived from research on health media content through narrative literature review, covering the late 1990s to the early 2000s. Consequently, there exists a knowledge gap regarding the development of health journalism research in the current century.

To evaluate knowledge development of an academic field, bibliometrics, defined as “the application of mathematics and statistical methods to books and other media of communication,” has been used across various disciplines (Pritchard and Wittig, 1981, p. 3) Research articles published in academic journals constitute a crucial component of the academic knowledge development process, serving as a primary indicator of research impact (Garfield, 2006). As Price (1965) described, the growth of academic knowledge often can be seen as structuring the research front, in which researchers pay attention to a small select part of the most recent literature as expressed by their references. Thus, the cluster of co-cited documents among academic papers indicates a relationship pattern among the influential concepts represented by these frequently cited documents in a given field and specialty (Small, 1973). Small and Crane (1979) highlighted the dynamic nature of scientific specialties, suggesting that applying the co-citation technique in these dynamic fields can help identify active areas deserving of in-depth analysis by other methods. The term specialty is used here in the colloquial sense to denote an area of study, encompassing both large and small domains, rather than strictly adhering to its narrow technical definition as a minimal cohesive research community (Morris and Van Der Veer Martens, 2008). In some cases, different clusters may identify the same specialty, which will be necessary to analyse different structural aspects of publications in combination in a quantitative fashion instead of the exclusive use of single aspects, like, for instance, combining co-citation mapping, and co-word mapping (Braam et al., 1991). Borgman and Furner (2002) investigated earlier validation studies of co-citation results, demonstrating that citation analysis offers statistical validity and high reliability.

This study conducted a systematic literature review of current research in health journalism, guided by the question: What are the current research themes in health journalism? To address this query, I systematically examined research articles from communication journals listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), covering the years 1994 to 2023. The study employed bibliometric methods to map the current intellectual landscape. In the pursuit of contributing to future research, it also proposed a direction for advancing the field.

 Methodology

The present study employed a systematic review approach to examine health journalism literature through a bibliometric analysis. To be systematic, the researcher used systematic searching guided by a predefined set of selection criteria to avoid potential bias in the author’s interpretations (Pae, 2015). Furthermore, incorporating bibliometric analysis into a systematic review enhances its impact by facilitating objective literature assessment, bolstering rigour, and mitigating researcher bias (Zupic and Čater, 2015). In this study, the researcher formulated three stages for the systematic review, summarizing the steps taken for data collection and subsequent analysis to fulfil the study’s objectives. These stages are depicted in the flowchart (Figure 1), and the succeeding sections provide detailed descriptions of each stage.

Flow chart of the bibliometric review method.

 Stage 1 data collection

Data collection took place on November 29, 2023 (see Table 1). A total of 238 research articles, along with their bibliographic metadata (including publication years, authors, titles, journals, cited references, etc.), were gathered from communication journals listed in the Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI), spanning the years 1994 to 2023. I focused on communication journals whereas scholars may prefer to publish in medical journals. Defining the search string is the first step in most bibliometric studies to gather representative academic work from a set of highly cited journals, reflecting the most active and productive segments within a field (Zhao, 2009). Through testing, the searching term “health journalism” retrieved focused outcomes to represent the research field of journalism within communication discipline rather than as a research object served for studies from other disciplines, which is suitable for the focus of this study.

Search strings and results of research articles on health journalism.

Data base Search string Number of articles Annual growth rate Timeframe* Number of journals Number of authors Number of single-authored articles Data Completeness (number and proportion of missing contents)
Publication Year Author Corresponding Author Abstract Keywords Cited References DOI
The Social Science Citation Index-Web of Science (WoS) (TS = (health journalism)) AND (DT==(“ARTICLE”) AND TASCA==(“COMMUNICATION”) AND EDN==(“WOS.SSCI”) AND LA==(“ENGLISH”)) 238 13.47% 1994–2023 40 544 58 0 0 4/1.68 0 23/9.66 1/0.42 9/3.78
Scopus (TITLE-ABS-KEY (health AND journalism)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SRCTYPE, “j”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (SUBJAREA, “SOCI”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (DOCTYPE, “ar”)) AND (LIMIT-TO (LANGUAGE, “English”)) 616 6.84% 1957–2023 254 1,352 194 0 1/0.16 146/ 23.7 0 155/25.16 39/ 6.33 57/9.25
Dimensions Health AND journalism, 4,701 Communication and Media Studies, Article 476 5.62% 1947–2023 229 1,018 192 7/ 1.47 9/1.89 289/60.71 1/0.21 391/82.14 476/ 100 12/2.52

Dates taken from start of database.

Furthermore, Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) was chosen for the composition of high-ranking and high-quality publications (Ho, 2014; Huh, 2017). To select a database with high-quality bibliographic metadata, three prominent databases—Social Sciences Citation Index (SSCI) of Thomson Reuters’ Web of Science (WoS), Scopus, and Dimensions—were tested to assess the completeness of exported bibliographic metadata. The testing acknowledged, as suggested by previous studies, the WoS as a credible and reliable source of bibliographic data (e.g., Birkle et al., 2020; Pranckutė, 2021), although Scopus, and Dimensions have higher coverage than Web of Science (e.g., Guerrero-Bote et al., 2021; Martín-Martín et al., 2021). This evaluation was conducted using the R-package of Bibliometrix, a bibliographic analysis program developed by the University of Naples Federico II (Aria and Cuccurullo, 2017; Derviş, 2020). Additionally, considering the types of articles can influence the results of citation analysis (Braam et al., 1991), review articles were excluded from the data collection for this study because their wider coverage often results in a higher citation impact as they tend to be more relevant to a greater number of articles than those reporting individual studies (Zhao and Strotmann, 2015, p. 16).

 Stage 2 descriptive analysis

The bibliographic metadata acquired from Stage 1 was imported into the R-package Bibliometrix for conducting descriptive analysis, unveiling productive sources, authors, and countries. Descriptive statistics include the number and frequency of literature geographically, authors, journals, years of publication and areas, etc., which focus on the production of a body of literature (Potter, 1988, as cited in Manganello, 2017). Potter (1988, as cited in Manganello, 2017) emphasises that descriptive studies predominantly centre on citation patterns or distributions, specifically two key laws: Lotka’s Law of Productivity, beneficial for testing extensive literature across a broad period, and Bradford’s Law of Scatter, which suggests that a small number of core journals publish approximately one-third of the literature in any given field. The H-index, proposed by Hirsch (2005), serves as a citation impact measure within bibliometrics. It was employed to assess the scientific output of both researchers and journals (Bornmann and Daniel, 2007). Overall, Lotka’s Law, Bradford’s Law, and H-index were used in this current study for measuring the scientific contribution.

 Stage 3 science mapping analysis based on co-word and bibliographic coupling

To examine the research themes within the body of literature, co-word and co-citation approaches were employed. The bibliographic metadata obtained from Stage 1 was imported into the R-package Bibliometrix to perform the visualisation of keywords co-occurrence mapping (Guo et al., 2019; Xu et al., 2022). It was performed based on the keywords visualised by Louvain algorithm (De Meo et al., 2011), which is common in keyword network clustering analysis (Wang et al., 2022).

For clustering a body of literature by research themes, co-citation analysis and bibliographic coupling are widely employed in citation network analysis. Small (1973) is widely credited with introducing co-citation analysis, particularly the concept of document co-citation where a pair of articles is linked if both are cited by a third article. Conversely, bibliographic coupling, introduced by Kessler (1963), involves two documents linked by their shared citations to a third article. Co-citation analysis has a weakness in detecting emerging research fronts due to a time lag of articles from getting published to getting cited, unlike bibliographic coupling analysis, which does not have this time delay (Shibata et al., 2009). This notable distinction stems from their respective focuses: Bibliographic coupling analysis centres on recent research by currently active scholars within a field, whereas co-citation analysis unveils the structure of influences on the field, encompassing sources from outside the field or from founding figures who are no longer active (Zhao and Strotmann, 2008). Moreover, bibliographic coupling exhibits greater accuracy when compared to co-citation analysis (Boyack and Klavans, 2010). Kleminski et al. (2022) have consistently highlighted that bibliographic coupling tends to obtain more meaningful insights compared to co-citation. Hence, this present study employed bibliographic coupling to cluster the body of health journalism literature obtained from stage 1.

The most used items for cluster analysis in bibliographic coupling are documents, authors, and journals (Jarneving, 2005). While author-based analysis often generates clearer visual maps of citation networks due to the fewer items required when most authors contribute multiple documents (Zhao and Strotmann, 2015, p. 26), it is not suitable for the dataset of current studies, where most authors only contributed single articles. The bibliographic coupling performed in this study was based on document, conducted using the software package VOS Viewer (Van Eck and Waltman, 2010). Furthermore, co-word analyses were conducted for the high-frequency words and their linkage in each cluster based on the article abstracts, using the web-based text analysis software Voyant Tools (Sampsel, 2018).

 Results and discussion Distribution of major health journalism literature Distribution by year

Figure 2 presents the yearly progression of the number of publications from 1994 to 2023. The initial upward trend reflects a growing interest among scholars in health journalism, particularly since 2011. A significant 44% of the total research articles (105 out of 238) were published in the last decade, spanning from 2011 to 2020. It’s noteworthy that the second peak indicates the publication of 183 research articles related to health journalism in the past 3 years since 2021, comprising 47% of the total research articles (112 out of 238). Based on our results, two peaks in health journalism research appear to align with two global pandemics: the 2009 H1N1 influenza virus (previously known as swine flu; Al Hajjar and McIntosh, 2010) and the COVID-19 outbreak in December 2019 (Peng, 2020).

The annual production of health journalism research from 1994 to 2023.

 Distribution by authors

According to the current dataset, 544 authors have contributed to 238 research articles on health journalism. Assessing author productivity through Lotka’s Law, 491 authors (90.3%) have each published one article. It indicates that health journalism research has been considered one of their areas of interest, contributing only a smaller portion to their academic endeavors throughout their careers. There are 32 authors who have published two articles (5.9%), and 16 authors who have published three articles, accounting for 2.9%. Additionally, three authors have each published four articles, representing 0.6%. Notable contributors in this category include Avery E. Holton from the University of Utah, María E. Len-Ríos from the University of Missouri, and Karin Raeymaeckers from Ghent University. Two authors have each published six articles, accounting for 0.4%. The highest contributing authors within our dataset are Amanda Hinnant from the University of Missouri and Daniel Jackson from Bournemouth University.

 Distribution by journals

Out of the 238 research articles selected for analysis, 40 journals have contributed. Table 2 presents the top 10 journals in health journalism research, ranked by H-index, which collectively account for 69.7% (166 out of 238 articles) of the current dataset. The table indicates that the area of study is multi-disciplinary, with contributions from the disciplines of journalism, media studies, science communication, and health communication. According to our results, Journalism Practice has been the most active journal in this field, holding a 13.45% share of the articles published in health journalism, followed by Journalism Studies (12.18%) and Journalism (10.92%). The contribution of Journalism Studies is also noteworthy, particularly in relation to its highest h-index. As shown in Figure 3, research in health journalism emerged in the Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, Science Communication, and Public Understanding of Science during the first decade of the 21st century. In contrast, other journals began publishing research related to health journalism after 2010.

Top 10 journals by the H-index of research articles on health journalism.

Name of the Journal Number of articles Total citations H-index
Journalism Studies 29 418 11
Science Communication 16 289 10
Journalism 26 274 8
Digital Journalism 19 288 8
Journalism Practice 32 203 7
Public Understanding of Science 12 151 7
Health Communication 9 226 6
Media International Australia 9 86 5
Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly 8 69 5
Media Culture and Society 6 104 5

The time-wise distribution of research articles on health journalism occurred in the top 10 Journals from 1994 to 2023.

 Distribution by countries

Table 3 shows the top 10 countries ranked by their corresponding author’s productivity in health journalism research. The United States emerges as the leading country, having 93 corresponding authors who received a total of 2,909 citations. Notably, Spain, Australia, and the United Kingdom, and Singapore have also demonstrated significant productivity, with 13, 19, 21 corresponding authors, respectively. Scientific collaboration analysis considers that if multiple authors are present in an article at the same time, these authors are regarded as collaborators. If these authors are from different countries, a collaborative network among these countries is formed. Figure 4 illustrates that American scholars are at the centre of the global network of health journalism research. The figure gives an extensive global network, with notable collaborations among scholars from the US, the UK, Chile, and China.

Countries with most citations of research articles on health journalism.

Country Total citations Number of articles from the corresponding Author’s Country*
USA 1,600 93
Spain 333 13
Australia 237 19
United Kingdom 183 21
Singapore 160 4
Sweden 125 6
Belgium 99 7
Canada 78 7
Germany 62 8
Finland 45 2

Includes multiple country publications.

Collaboration network among countries.

 Major research themes of health journalism literature The co-occurrence network of keywords

Thirty-four of the most frequently used author’s keywords were identified, labelled, and organised into four groups from a pool of 827 keywords found in the 238 research articles selected for this study. This network classification is illustrated in Figure 5. The first group encompasses keywords such as journalism, framing, newspapers, health, public health, media, mental health, ethics, news media, political communication, sources, comparative research, science, democracy, disinformation, gender, and trauma. These are represented as nodes in red in Figure 5. This group of keywords is centred around the keyword ‘journalism’, related to the common research approach, such as framing and comparative research. The second group consists of nodes in blue in Figure 5 labelled as follows: covid-19, coronavirus, pandemic, constructive journalism, news consumption, solutions journalism, and uncertainty. It indicates the significance of constructive journalism or solutions journalism highlighted by the COVID-19 outbreak. The third group is represented by nodes in green in Figure 5, labelled as follows: science journalism, health communication, public understanding of science, and science communication. This group shows health journalism understood as a type of science journalism from health and scientific communication perspectives. The last group includes nodes coloured in purple in Figure 5 labelled as follows: content analysis, social media, health journalism, news, Facebook, Twitter. It highlights the use of content analysis in researching health news on social media.

The co-occurrence network of author’s keywords from the health journalism literature.

These highlighted keywords provide a brief snapshot of the conceptual structure of health journalism but cannot directly structure and organise the articles using this method. Therefore, bibliographic coupling analysis was used to structure the articles, and its results are discussed below.

 Ten clusters found by bibliographic coupling analysis

Without restrictions on the minimum number of citations, 233 articles were clustered out of a total of 238 research articles to explore the premise and emerging research specialties in health journalism using bibliographic coupling. As shown in Table 5, 10 clusters are organised, and the articles belonging to the same cluster have cited the same references in higher amounts, indicating a higher probability of advancing similar research themes or employing the same methodical approach. In addition, within the same cluster, the top 10 words with the highest frequency from titles and abstracts, along with their co-words in these clusters, are listed by co-word analysis (see Table 4). The results from the automatic approach of co-word analysis could help avoid potential bias in the author’s interpretations when summarising the research themes. The research themes below were summarised by closely reading each article in the same cluster.

Identified high frequency words and their co-words from titles and abstracts of 10 clusters by bibliographic coupling.

Cluster Article count Highest frequency words (count) Co-words
1 42 health (112), news (82), media (69), public (46), coverage (44), analysis (41), study (40), reporting (40), journalists (33), journalism (33) framing, issues, pandemic, articles, communication, journalistic, role, perception, daily, covid, research, political, content, examines, interviews, responses, use, swine, professional, sources
2 32 news (109), media (59), health (45), local (37), journalism (35), study (33), content (25), analysis (24), social (23), research (21) exposure, objectives, medical, findings, related, capital, examines, quality, community, uses, use, shape
3 29 news (84), media (67), journalism (56), health (56), covid (46), public (38), pandemic (36), constructive (36), social (30), study (29) professionals, overload, participants, trust, reporting, systems. Discuss, explored, information, effects, avoidance, approach, fact, positive, funding, model
4 27 journalists (109), news (38), health (33), study (30), fact (29), work (26), journalism (26), emotional (25), social (24), pandemic (24) literacy, crisis, covid, virus, exposure, related, role, protests, websites, interviews, support, net, labour (labor), information, production, television, routines, coverage, mental, public, press, practices, organizations
5 26 science (71), health (48), news (42), journalist (35), media (34), coverage (24), scientific (23), study (21), journalism (21), information (20) evidence, depth, risks, times, press, research, reporting, sources, public, uncertainty, vaccination, vaccine, training, literacy, content, types, quality, peer
6 24 media (46), news (43), journalism (43), journalists (36), health (33), research (31), indigenous (16), study (15), citizen (15), content (14) personal, community, margins, workers, voices, uncertainty, analysis, findings, representations, brandings, crowd, public, values, users, role, share, agenda, intervention, language, Africa, communication, sharing, issues, sharing, newsrooms, political, trust
7 22 journalists (85), health (79), news (58), media (30), study (20), sourcing (19), sources (19), role (17), practices (17), journalism (16) social, flux, twitter, journalistic, multi, press, private, mentioned, conceptions, public, native, magazines, reporting, networks, Australian, professional
8 17 media (53), news (45), health (30), coverage (27), journalists (24), sources (23), social (23), suicide (18), reporting (18), public (17) sourcing, mainstream, study, based, crisis, textbooks, rrs#, protests, research, debate, analysis, struggle, open, guidelines, themes, posts, relationship, Tanzania, evidence, related science
9 10 news (38), health (34), media (23), expertise (16), coverage (14), journalism (11), interest (11), scientific (10), stories (9), analysis (9) sources, systems, journalistic, used (using), treat, research, study, qualitative, narratives, terms, based, participation, online, popular, understanding, favor, experts, trajectories, compared, covid, issue, ways, told, German, judgement, human, previous
10 4 journalism (20), peace (14), covid (9), media (7), news (6), local (6), subframe (5), solutions (5), pandemic (5), immigration (5) portrayed, representations, repatriation, unprecedented, pj##, traditional, theory, stricken, principles, model, positive, stories, study, new, time, posed, using, residents, stigmatized, scholarship, suggests, covering, coverage, values, referring, untied, proposing, analyzing, approach, project, closer

RRS is short for “responsible reporting on suicide.”

PJ is short for “peace journalism.”

 Cluster 1: how health stories are framed in the news

Most articles in the first cluster focused on the representation of health-related issues in journalism, employing framing analysis. The cluster comprises 42 articles, dating back to 2005 at the earliest (Miah, 2005). Most early research primarily shed light on framing new technology and innovations in the news, such as the ethical issues of gene-edited reproductive technology (e.g., González Santos et al., 2018; Michelle, 2007; Miah, 2005) and radiation in health usage (Candela and Pasquarè Mariotto, 2016).

Later, the major body of literature in this cluster focused on how public health crises are framed in the news, such as Covid-19 (Bednarek and Carr, 2021; Bernadas and Ilagan, 2020; Bosch and Wasserman, 2023; Hamusokwe et al., 2022; Meyer and Van Schalkwyk, 2023; Milutinović, 2021; Sadri et al., 2022; Wollnik, 2021; Zhao et al., 2023), 2009 H1N1, also named swine flu (Holland et al., 2014; Holland and Blood, 2013), and the life crisis in East Africa (Conrad, 2015). Comparative analysis was employed by Suran et al. (2014) to make a comparison among public health topics in the news, by Edwards (2022) to compare the framing of Covid-19 and the 1918 flu in Spine news coverage, and by Perko et al. (2019) to compare news coverage of nuclear accidents between Fukushima and Chernobyl. Alternatively, mediation analysis is systematically reviewed in the research of health news by Chan et al. (2022) and employed by Maier et al. (2017) to examine news frames and emotional response to genocide and mass violence.

Framing public health issues in the news was also explored across various domains, including mental health (Holland, 2018; Slopen et al., 2007; Zhang et al., 2016), HIV (Grimm and Schwartz, 2021; Owen, 2018; Ren and Dan, 2022), cancer (Kim et al., 2017), food (Brüggemann et al., 2022), alcohol (Carah and Van Horen, 2011), obesity (Sandberg, 2007), and gaming disorder (Schatto-Eckrodt et al., 2020).

In addition, framing of gender health was also highlighted, for example, the framing of brain injuries among American female athletes (Grubic, 2023), the framing of breastfeeding in public (Bock et al., 2019), and the framing of maternal mortality among African American women (Walker and Boling, 2023), stereotyping of the female body (Tinga et al., 2023). Critical discourse analysis was employed to examine the gendered framing (Bock et al., 2019; Hamusokwe et al., 2022; Tinga et al., 2023). In addition, community health issues were discussed, such as the framing of Indigenous health (LaPoe et al., 2022), health podcasts in the UAE and Pakistan (Raza et al., 2023), and the news portrayal of elderly people mistreated in private health care (Djerf-Pierre et al., 2013). From a methodological perspective, content analysis is closely associated with and widely employed in a larger body of research articles that conduct framing analysis, with further advancements noted in some studies (e.g., Bednarek and Carr, 2021; Kruvand, 2012; Riesch, 2011).

 Cluster 2: how audiences engage with health information online

The second cluster explores the impact of online media on audiences, examining how audience interaction influences journalistic practices, the mediation of health messages, and the online debate on public policy. This cluster comprises 32 articles, with the earliest dating back to 2008 (McMillan et al., 2008). McMillan et al. (2008) examined the mediation of health messages from the public’s interaction with online health website. A similar approach was later undertaken by Hurley et al. (2014) and Moon (2015), who specifically focused on online health news.

With the continued growth of social media, more studies have investigated such online interactivity. This includes health information on Facebook (Mathieu, 2016), online news articles about mental health (Adamson et al., 2017) or Ice Bucket Challenge (Brown et al., 2020), how user comments influence audience perceptions of health news stories (Hinnant et al., 2023), and the prevalence of health misinformation in social media groups (Zimdars et al., 2023).

Constantly, some studies have explored the impact of the audience’s online engagement on traditional journalism of health reporting, for example, how social media metrics shaped journalistic practices (Mukerjee et al., 2023). According to Hallin and Briggs (2015), the role of health journalists in mediation is not only influenced by the field of medicine and science but also shaped by changing media logic. Moreover, some research articles on online health information fall within the overlap of political communication and health communication, highlighting the complex nature of health journalism. For instance, public debates surrounding health-related policy decisions were employed as their cases to examine the roles played by traditional journalists and audience’s online engagement on social media. Their results reaffirmed the essential role of traditional journalists in promoting public deliberation based on facts (Lawrence and Schafer, 2012), and the interventions of critical and investigative journalism (Fonn and Hyde-Clarke, 2023).

Cluster 3: how constructive journalism can improve the news reporting of public health crisis

Cluster 3 concentrated on examining the influence of COVID-19 on the current media system and journalistic practices, emphasizing the significance of constructive journalism, as a type of solutions-oriented journalism, encompassing the idea of incorporating positive perspectives into news reports. This cluster comprises 29 articles, with the oldest one dating back to 2020 (Casero-Ripolles, 2020). The effects of this pandemic on the media system have been examined, highlighting the resurgence of television news in re-establishing connections with audiences previously distant from information (Casero-Ripolles, 2020). For example, online news outlets tend to portray the significant rise in income inequality in the context of COVID-19 in a subdued manner (Odriozola-Chéné et al., 2020). The politicisation of COVID-19 coverage has significant implications for public health communication and, ultimately, compliance with disease-preventative measures (Wondemaghen, 2023). Nevertheless, both news outlets and social media platforms face criticism for amplifying concerns such as anxiety, racial bias, and resistance to public health recommendations amid the COVID-19 pandemic (Overgaard, 2021). Restricting the news consumption is viewed as a strategy to preserve mental well-being (Mannell and Meese, 2022).

Constructive journalism is supported for its capacity to alleviate anger and anxiety and to improve the trust and comprehension (Overgaard, 2021; Van Antwerpen et al., 2022; Van Antwerpen et al., 2023a; Van Antwerpen et al., 2023b), but its effectiveness might be challenged in less developed countries (Mututwa and Mare, 2021; Tshabangu and Salawu, 2021). The possibility of practicing constructive journalism using digital means has been explored, such as podcasts (Lindgren and Jorgensen, 2023; Sang et al., 2023). Particularly in these countries, independent news media has confronted a crisis exacerbated by the impact of COVID-19 (Trifonova Price and Antonova, 2024).

 Cluster 4: how fact-checking can improve the news reporting of public health crisis

Although the majority of studies in Cluster 4 focused on the news reporting of COVID-19 as a general journalism practice, it is noteworthy that news coverage significantly shaped public understanding of COVID-19 (Strydhorst and Landrum, 2022). This cluster includes 27 articles, with the earliest one published in 2013 by Rafter and Knowlton (2013). Moreover, anxiety and concerns related to COVID-19 have led to a decrease in health fact-checking, a phenomenon largely influenced by social media information overload and social media fatigue (Jiang, 2022). Cushion et al. (2022) contend that, as audiences show a preference for rigorous journalistic scrutiny of information sources, journalists can more prominently engage in fact-checking claims and questioning dubious statements without eroding trust in journalism. Fact-checking also leans on the expertise of scientists, especially virologists, who field questions and engage in discussions among participants to debunk myths and combat fake news related to the coronavirus pandemic (Fedtke et al., 2023). The prevailing belief among most journalists is that accurate information is rooted in scientific evidence and coverage of official communication. They see the role of professional journalism as combating misinformation, pseudoscience, conspiracies, and fake news (Muresan and Salcudean, 2023). It’s noteworthy to observe an emerging departure from the public reason model inherent in journalism’s professional logic toward a more instrumental public health model of news work. This adaptation is particularly relevant in a digital media environment dominated by platform companies (Graves et al., 2023). Martínez-García and Ferrer (2023) highlighted journalistic collaborations with fact-checkers to fight disinformation.

Cluster 5: how health stories are framed from science journalism perspective

The fifth cluster focused on examining the representation of health issues from a science journalism perspective, assuming that health news is a subtype of scientific news. This cluster comprises 26 articles, with the earliest one published in 1998 by Culbertson et al. (1998). Differing from Cluster 1, articles in this cluster leaned towards employing the term “model,” which incorporates “framing,” as a competent way to characterise the news reporting on health issues. Examples include the overuse of the biomedical model of disease in health news reporting (Mercado-Martinez and Robles, 2001) and the development of criteria evaluation model for news coverage of risk (Vasterman et al., 2008). In addition, Lee and Basnyat (2013) employed framing to analyse the news coverage of the 2009 H1N1 A Influenza Pandemic within the developmental model of journalism.

Furthermore, understanding scientific evidence in health research, referred to as health literacy, is essential for enhancing information quality and developing effective sourcing strategies (e.g., Amend and Secko, 2012; Chew et al., 2006; Clarke, 2011; Hinnant and Len-Ríos, 2009; Lynch et al., 2014; Mbarga et al., 2012; Ratcliff, 2021; Stroobant et al., 2018). Many articles focused on the effective sourcing strategies of health journalism in the context of non-Western developing countries (Appiah et al., 2015; Lublinski et al., 2014) and comparations among countries (Ren et al., 2014; Rosen et al., 2016; Vestergaard and Nielsen, 2016). The COVID-19 pandemic transformed the comprehension of scientific evidence into a data-driven journalism practice, thereby redefining the objectivity of news and public opinions (Wu, 2021).

 Cluster 6: why citizen journalism is significant in health news reporting

The sixth cluster focuses on the examination of the significance of citizen journalism in health news reporting, specialised for marginalised communities. This cluster comprises 24 articles, and the earliest one was published in 2013 by Sweet et al. (2013), who suggested Indigenous citizen journalism can serve as both journalistic and public health interventions to improve the health of the Indigenous community. Citizen journalists from the Indigenous community can alleviate their marginalised and ignored situation through engagement with so-called mainstream news outlets (Tsai et al., 2022). For instance, the intersection of Indigenous-language media in Africa with gender and health communication was highlighted, such as how these media outlets cover health emergencies and portray various aspects such as politics, gender, health, sports, violence, and communication science (Tshabangu and Salawu, 2022). Furthermore, Hinnant et al. (2019) noted the Indigenous citizen journalism grappled with the tension between medical understanding of health and cultural perspectives on health. This tension contributed to the oversaturation of certain issues, such as diabetes, while other health topics were underrepresented. Therefore, as Barge (2023) suggested, health communication interventions encompass patient-based, community-based, and media-based approaches, along with critical intervention perspectives. Barge (2023) emphasises cultural interventions, adopting a culture-centred approach aimed at transforming social inequities.

Moreover, health journalism is experiencing a significant reduction in the boundary between traditional journalists working for news organizations and citizen journalists. Davis (2017) proposed refining general citizen journalism into a community health focus. This initiative led to the development of a training program for local health professionals and social workers, empowering them to use media tools for citizen journalism practices. Meanwhile, Luce et al. (2017) adopted a similar approach for disabled and elderly individuals, empowering them to take on the role of citizen journalists. The collaboration between journalists and community health experts, exemplified by co-produced podcasts, was also recommended by MacGregor and Cooper (2020).

 Cluster 7: how health journalists perceive their journalistic role

The seventh cluster focuses on the examination of roles and approaches employed by journalists in reporting health news, which suggests that the practices involved in gathering health news often deviate from the typical newsgathering methods employed by general reporters. Overall, this cluster comprises 22 articles. The earliest one was published in 2007 by Gill and Babrow (2007). From their work, specific news gathering approaches were identified in the coverage of breast cancer, including the simplification of health information and the use of metaphoric expression. Additionally, the common practice in health news reporting involved the use of personal stories as examples or faces to illustrate a health issue, as noted by Hinnant et al. (2013), De Dobbelaer et al. (2018), and Wheatley (2020). Compared with general journalists, health journalists, particularly on topics such as vaccines, approached the subject from a neutral perspective, drawing on a broader array of scientific sources, notably those from professional associations and scientific journals (Catalán-Matamoros and Peñafiel-Saiz, 2019; Schultz, 2023). Given that health news often addresses politically charged topics involving corporate or state responsibility for the causes and solutions of health problems, health journalists operate on a spectrum in terms of their professional role conception, ranging from a disseminator to a facilitative role (Hinnant et al., 2016). However, the survey conducted by Gearhart et al. (2018) notes that US journalists working in Indigenous media outlets are identified as disseminators of culturally relevant health information. Journalists covering health crises often adopt a more cooperative role with authorities in their efforts to contain the crises (Klemm et al., 2019).

In addition, Twitter helped to build the identity of health journalists (Holton, 2016), and could serve as a news sourcing tool for health journalists, but they tended to use it more for monitoring and interacting with their peer journalists rather than seeking information from other sources, including health experts or the general public (Deprez and Van Leuven, 2018; Zhang and Zhu, 2022). Gender also played a role, with traditional areas of higher financial value, like politics and sports, being predominantly covered by male reporters, while fields such as arts, education, and health were primarily covered by females (Middleweek, 2022; North, 2016; Ross et al., 2018).

 Cluster 8: who serves as the news source for health news reporting

Most of research articles from the eighth cluster centred on examining who are the news sourcing used by health journalists, indicating the limitations of traditional news gathering approaches and the rise of social media activism as a response to public health issues. This cluster comprises 17 articles. The earliest one was published by Viswanath et al. (2008). They conducted a national survey of U.S. health journalists and found that 93% of respondents were Caucasian, with their primary news sources being press conferences or press releases. Additionally, in developing countries, it is notable to highlight the potentially problematic role of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in intensifying promotional and advocacy-driven health reporting (Kothari, 2018). Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, mainstream news organisations continued to exhibit a robust elite orientation, relying heavily on sources from the state and biomedical authorities (Matar and Taha, 2023; Matthews et al., 2024; Mellado et al., 2021). In addition, Garnier et al. (2022) conducted a study on the news coverage of Avian Influenza in the UK and discovered that the coverage did not seem to promote an open, constructive, and informed public debate.

 Cluster 9: how health professionals impact health news reporting

The ninth cluster continued to explore the tension between journalism objectivity and advocacy, particularly evident in the relationship between health and media professionals. This cluster comprises 10 articles, and the earliest one was published by Canary et al. (2018). They examined the news coverage of a specific type of genetic test and found that most news articles relied exclusively on press releases distributed by for-profit laboratory companies.

Furthermore, Stroobant et al. (2019) argued that the production of health news is a co-production within the biomedical sector, intricately interwoven within academic, industrial, state, and media structures since the 1980s. This integration is suggested to worsen the existing health inequalities. As science and media become more closely connected, it is essential to understand the role of media in contributing to medicalization, characterised by the inclination to depict and address an increasing array of human conditions and experiences using medical terminology (Hallin et al., 2021; Ross Arguedas, 2020). Therefore, the role of the medical expertise was highlighted in health news gathering (Leidecker-Sandmann et al., 2022; Ross Arguedas, 2021). However, Saikkonen (2019) argued that it is crucial to examine how journalists themselves understand their role and practices in evaluating health expertise as a source in various socio-cultural contexts.

On the other hand, health is deemed a shared responsibility, urging for political intervention and accountability from health authorities (Leidecker-Sandmann et al., 2022). These assertions are more prominent in European health news and less common in the more commercially oriented U.S. health and media system. Moreover, to achieve a balance, Ytreberg and Thorbjørnsrud (2020) proposed including medical patients as health news sources, alongside medical professionals.

Cluster 10: how peace journalism can be used for health news reporting on vulnerable populations

Cluster 10 delved into peace journalism and solution journalism in the context of news coverage for disadvantaged people and communities during the COVID-19, encompassing four articles. Solution journalism is characterised as news actively seeking solutions for social problems (Wenzel et al., 2018), while peace journalism is defined as the media framing of open war and conflict focused on social responsibility that actively contributes to fostering peaceful resolutions of conflicts (Hanitzsch, 2004). The earliest article, authored by Wenzel et al. (2018), focused on the implementation of solution journalism in stigmatized communities across the US. Following this, Kalfeli et al. (2022) expanded the realm of peace journalism by introducing a new model tailored to scrutinize how media portrays immigration. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the peace journalism was found to cover the vulnerable populations in health news reporting (Auwal et al., 2022; Ersoy and Dambo, 2023).

 Further directions

Future research directions are proposed here. The first two pertain to overlooked or problematically portrayed communities in current health news reporting, specifically focusing on gender or other marginalized social groups. Additionally, two directions highlight health topics that have been neglected, namely sustainability, as well as complementary and alternative medicines. The remaining directions delve into the digital impact on health news reporting, addressing health disinformation and medicalization, as well as the role of social media in shaping the citizen-as-source relationship in health journalism.

Women as subjects and sources of health news reporting

Several articles from Cluster 1 and Cluster 7 investigated the role of gender in health news repotting. Women’s full participation in society is limited when their worth is confined to the roles their bodies play for others (Bock et al., 2019). Therefore, women as subjects and sources of health news reporting remain significant when Media coverage continues to be shaped by hegemonic masculinity (Grubic, 2023; Tinga et al., 2023). Additionally, examining how health news addresses the intersectionality of gender and queer experiences presents a fertile ground for various analyses and criticisms. This inquiry aims to illuminate how diseases, intricately linked with gender norms, are portrayed by the media and journalists (Bradshaw, 2022).

 Health news with a positive impact on marginalized communities

Several articles from Cluster 8 found that so-called mainstream news outlets frequently portray protests in a negative manner, particularly when addressing issues such as discrimination against Indigenous people, racism, immigrants’ rights, health, and the environment (Brown and Harlow, 2019). Compared to so-called mainstream news outlets, ethnic news press demonstrates a tradition of activism, advocating for ethnic health and freedom (Williams, 2021). Employing personal narratives on social media, which showcase dynamic and multidimensional stories, should be regarded as a strategic approach for marginalized communities (Moors, 2019).

Future studies should investigate how individuals from diverse ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds in communities with a prolonged history of negative media portrayal respond to narratives involving nearby but distinct groups (Wenzel et al., 2018). This is particularly evident in the context of immigration issues (Kalfeli et al., 2022). Moreover, news coverage of public crises must avoid perpetuating the stigmatization or marginalization of specific racial or ethnic groups as carriers of diseases (Ersoy and Dambo, 2023). Achieving racial diversity in traditional newsrooms and incorporating the knowledge and perspectives of journalists from varied backgrounds is essential to improving public understanding of significant issues related to racial justice and exploring potential solutions (Brown and Harlow, 2019). Additionally, upcoming research could investigate the lasting effects of citizen news reporting on civic engagement, self-esteem, and psychological well-being among Indigenous community members (Tsai et al., 2022). Future research endeavors should delve into the diverse significance of different media sources within communities and explore the relationship between the sense of community and the sense of belonging (Damanhoury et al., 2022).

 Health news of sustainability

Issues linked to the unsustainable nature of our consumption patterns pose a challenge as they are characterized by gradual, long-term processes rather than individual events. Recognizing that Sustainable Living has evolved into a prevalent perspective in numerous countries and newspapers is crucial, as it opens up avenues for researchers to delve deeper into and explore these sustainability issues (Brüggemann et al., 2022).

 Health news of complementary and alternative medicines

A singular article within the Cluster 8 delved into the framing of Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAM) in Spanish news. The study revealed a shift as the media increasingly reported on the legitimization of complementary and alternative medicines, the tone of its coverage underwent a shift towards a negative perspective (Lopera-Pareja and Cano-Orón, 2022). It remains crucial for health news reporting to be guided by scientific evidence (Walker and Viaña, 2023).

However, it is worth noting that science, particularly in the form of Western medicine, is often endowed with epistemological authority, potentially overlooking the subjectivity inherent in the predominantly Western institutions that have shaped the development of this knowledge and practice (Tinga et al., 2023). The constraints of the research tradition become evident due to its confinement within Western-centric paradigms, which presuppose the universality of Western knowledge. This underscores the importance of context-driven empirical research that can both contribute to and challenge existing theories (Matar and Taha, 2023).

 Health disinformation and medicalization

Although the impacts of disinformation are frequently studied in the realms of political communication and journalism, it is equally important to consider significant implications for health and science communication, as discussed in articles from Cluster 3. The intricate connections between health news and various stakeholders in the health sector, including biomedicine, industry, the state, and civil society, warrant increased scrutiny from researchers in the fields of journalism and political communication (Hallin et al., 2021). There is a need for future research to investigate whether accusations of disinformation have diverse effects on issues that are more closely tied to identity and the varying levels of trust in media structures (Egelhofer et al., 2022). As the intersection of science and media becomes more intricate, there is an increasing need to comprehend how media contributes to the process of medicalization. Medicalization is defined as the process whereby an expanding array of human conditions is defined in medical terms (Ross Arguedas, 2021). Additionally, upcoming research could explore the growing importance of scientists on the news of public health crisis in the context of the diminishing authority of politicians in Western democracies (Fedtke et al., 2023). Unlike previous pandemic discussions, the prominence of scientific experts has diminished in the news coverage of COVID-19, with a greater emphasis on individuals strategically communicating from the political executive (Leidecker-Sandmann et al., 2022). There is considerable potential for future research in developing methods and tools for journalists and readers in evaluating the strength of evidence and uncertainties in scientific studies (Løvlie et al., 2023). More research should look into whether and how the way journalists work, and the conditions they work in, might be stopping them from giving the kind of news coverage needed to tackle complex issues, including the scientific, scholarly, cultural, political, and economic conflicts connected to these issues (Garnier et al., 2022).

 The role of social media in shaping the citizen-as-source relationship in health journalism

Making health news for social media is an ongoing and significant topic of interest (Matthews et al., 2024). As discussed by several articles from the Cluster 6, On Facebook, local healthcare news was extensively shared among the audience (Almgren, 2017). Though news organization tended to use the news of sports and entertainment to attract their online audience, the most audience comments and interaction were found form the news of politics and health care (Almgren and Olsson, 2015). In Australia, for example, health and education issues continue to be among the most salient topics in policy-related news reporting (Gibbons, 2020). Allaham and Diakopoulos (2022) developed audience response models from online comments during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In addition, Twitter also granted occupational health journalist brands their own identity and influence, shifting the focus from the news organization they are affiliated with and altering the dynamics of their relationship with the audience (Molyneux and Holton, 2015). Journalists specializing in health coverage might prioritize personal branding due to the relatively specific nature of their coverage area (Holton and Molyneux, 2017). In the realms of science and health journalism, for instance, Sehat (2022) observed a lack of journalists’ involvement in news distribution on digital platforms that do not identify as news publishers. During COVID-19, the comments from right-wing politicians could slightly undermine the credibility of journalism, focusing more on scientists and health authorities (Egelhofer et al., 2022).

Also discussed in several articles from Cluster 8, the potential of social media in taking citizen’s voice in account of news on public health issues persisted (Len-Ríos et al., 2014). Social media activism emerged in response to a local health crisis, as citizens-initiated hashtag campaigns to construct a critique of inadequate journalistic storytelling (Moors, 2019). Several aspects of the citizen-as-source relationship warrant further exploration and play influential roles in this dynamic, for instance, examining how news reporters acquire sources through personal contacts, tip-offs, PR liaisons, sources reaching out independently to the media, or even via social media is crucial (Wheatley, 2020). Greater emphasis should be placed on non-elite sources, rather than elite entities such as governments, in the process of news gathering, ensuring equal opportunities for various segments of society to have their voices heard (Auwal et al., 2022). Moreover, including patients’ perspectives in health news reporting can be advantageous, as it promotes a more comprehensive understanding of the experiences associated with illness (Ytreberg and Thorbjørnsrud, 2020).

In summary, this paper suggests potential avenues for future research. The initial two parts focus on underrepresented or inaccurately depicted communities in contemporary health news coverage, particularly emphasizing gender, or other marginalized social groups. Another set of directions draws attention to overlooked health subjects, namely sustainability and complementary and alternative medicines, which are often marginalized in mainstream medical practices and biotechnology discourse. The final paths explore the digital influence on health news reporting, examining issues such as health misinformation and medicalization, the impact of social media in news gathering of health journalism.

 Conclusion

In this study, we conducted a systematic review using bibliometric analysis, focusing on SSCI-indexed journal articles in health journalism. Our analysis revealed two significant peaks in health journalism research, corresponding to the 2009 H1N1 influenza (swine flu) and the COVID-19 outbreak. The academic contribution was led by the United States, followed by Spain, Australia, the United Kingdom, and Singapore. The study identified noteworthy authors, highly cited articles, and influential journals. A bibliographic coupling analysis highlighted 10 key research themes, including: How health stories are framed in the news; How audiences engage with health information online; How constructive journalism can improve the news reporting of public health crisis; How fact-checking can improve the news reporting of public health crisis; How health stories are framed from science journalism perspective; Why citizen journalism is significant in health news reporting; How health journalists perceive their journalistic role; Who serves as the news source for health news reporting; How health professionals impact health news reporting; and How peace journalism can be used for health news reporting on vulnerable populations. Moreover, the study proposes future research directions. These include exploring topics such as women as subjects and sources of health news, sustainability in health reporting, positive impacts of health news on marginalized communities, health news related to complementary and alternative medicines, health disinformation and medicalization, the role of social media in citizen-as-source relationship in health journalism.

This study has several limitations. First, it is imperative to acknowledge that the current research does not undertake an exhaustive examination of all existing research articles on the subject. Instead, it focuses on English research articles published from 1994 to 2023 indexed in the SSCI, a deliberate choice made to ensure the use of high-quality bibliometric data. It is essential to recognise the findings may not represent the entirety of available research on health journalism but only offer a bird’s eye view and map the basic structure of health journalism scholarship. This study intentionally explores research on health news exclusively from the perspective of journalism studies. This decision is driven by the aim to maintain a clear and focused approach to mapping the intellectual structure of health journalism literature. However, it is essential to acknowledge that health news, as a subject, spans various research disciplines. This study focused on communication journals whereas scholars may prefer to publish in medical journals. Considering these limitations, future research endeavors could complement and extend the findings of this study, for instance, by adopting a scoping review approach based on the research themes identified here.

 Data availability statement

The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author, Shi Feng, upon reasonable request directed to fengshi1919@gmail.com.

 Author contributions

SF: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Software, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing.

 Funding

The author(s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

 Conflict of interest

The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

 Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

 References Adamson G. Donaldson L. Whitley R. (2017). Sharing recovery stories: network gatekeeping of online news about mental illness. Digit. Journal. 5, 903–918. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2016.1224671 Al Hajjar S. McIntosh K. (2010). The first influenza pandemic of the 21st century. Ann. Saudi Med. 30, 1–10. doi: 10.5144/0256-4947.59365, PMID: 20103951 Allaham M. Diakopoulos N. (2022). Predicting COVID: understanding audience responses to predictive journalism via online comments. New Media Soc.:146144482211356. doi: 10.1177/14614448221135632 Almgren S. M. (2017). Undoing Churnalism?: users sharing local news on Facebook. Digit. Journal. 5, 1060–1079. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1343089 Almgren S. M. Olsson T. (2015). ‘Let’s Get Them Involved’ … to Some Extent: Analyzing Online News Participation. Soc. Med. Soc. 1:205630511562193. doi: 10.1177/2056305115621934 Amend E. Secko D. M. (2012). In the face of critique: a metasynthesis of the experiences of journalists covering health and science. Sci. Commun. 34, 241–282. doi: 10.1177/1075547011409952 Appiah B. Gastel B. Burdine J. N. Russell L. H. (2015). Science reporting in Accra, Ghana: sources, barriers and motivational factors. Public Underst. Sci. 24, 23–37. doi: 10.1177/0963662514547478, PMID: 25193967 Aria M. Cuccurullo C. (2017). Bibliometrix: an R-tool for comprehensive science mapping analysis. J. Informet. 11, 959–975. doi: 10.1016/j.joi.2017.08.007, PMID: 37427124 Auwal A. M. Dambo T. H. Ersoy M. (2022). Chastising the child of necessity: peace journalism and Almajiri repatriation during COVID-19. Commun. Crit. Cult. Stud. 19, 363–384. doi: 10.1080/14791420.2022.2130951 Barge J. K. (2023). Intervention orientations in communication research. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 51, 481–499. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2022.2162346 Bartig S. Rommel A. Wengler A. Santos-Hövener C. Lampert T. Ziese T. (2019). Health reporting on people with a migration background – selection and definition of (core) indicators. J. Health Monit. 4, 29–48. doi: 10.25646/6073, PMID: 35146252 Bednarek M. Carr G. (2021). Computer-assisted digital text analysis for journalism and communications research: introducing corpus linguistic techniques that do not require programming. Media Int. Aust. 181, 131–151. doi: 10.1177/1329878X20947124 Benson R. (1999). Field theory in comparative context: A new paradigm for media studies. Theory Soc. 28, 463–498. doi: 10.1023/A:1006982529917 Bernadas J. M. A. C. Ilagan K. (2020). Journalism, public health, and COVID-19: some preliminary insights from the Philippines. Media Int. Aust. 177, 132–138. doi: 10.1177/1329878X20953854 Birkle C. Pendlebury D. A. Schnell J. Adams J. (2020). Web of science as a data source for research on scientific and scholarly activity. Quant. Sci. Stud. 1, 363–376. doi: 10.1162/qss_a_00018, PMID: 38934743 Bock M. A. Pain P. Jhang J. (2019). Covering nipples: news discourse and the framing of breastfeeding. Fem. Media Stud. 19, 53–69. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2017.1313754 Bonfiglioli C. Cullen T. (2017). Health journalism—evolution and innovation in the digital age. Aust. J. Rev. 39, 13–22. Borgman C. L. Furner J. (2002). Scholarly communication and bibliometrics. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 36, 2–72. doi: 10.1002/aris.1440360102, PMID: 39107778 Bornmann L. Daniel H. (2007). What do we know about the h index? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 58, 1381–1385. doi: 10.1002/asi.20609 Bosch T. Wasserman H. (2023). South African tabloid coverage of Covid19: the daily Sun. Media Cult. Soc. 45, 656–667. doi: 10.1177/01634437221140514, PMID: 38603313 Boyack K. W. Klavans R. (2010). Co-citation analysis, bibliographic coupling, and direct citation: which citation approach represents the research front most accurately? J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61, 2389–2404. doi: 10.1002/asi.21419 Braam R. R. Moed H. F. Van Raan A. F. J. (1991). Mapping of science by combined co-citation and word analysis. I. Structural aspects. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 42, 233–251. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199105)42:4<233::AID-ASI1>3.0.CO;2-I Bradshaw E. (2022). A distressing and peculiar disease: endometriosis in the Australian press 1949–2011. Media Int. Aust.:1329878X2211459. doi: 10.1177/1329878X221145974 Briggs C. L. Hallin D. C. (2010). Health reporting as political reporting: biocommunicability and the public sphere. Journalism 11, 149–165. doi: 10.1177/1464884909355732 Broome C. V. Horton H. H. Tress D. Lucido S. J. Koo D. (2003). Statutory basis for public health reporting beyond specific diseases. J. Urban Health 80, i14–i22. doi: 10.1007/PL00022310, PMID: 12791774 Brown D. K. Harlow S. (2019). Protests, media coverage, and a hierarchy of social struggle. Int. J. Press/Politics 24, 508–530. doi: 10.1177/1940161219853517 Brown D. K. Lough K. Riedl M. J. (2020). Emotional appeals and news values as factors of shareworthiness in ice bucket challenge coverage. Digit. Journal. 8, 267–286. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2017.1387501 Brüggemann M. Kunert J. Sprengelmeyer L. (2022). Framing food in the news: still keeping the politics out of the broccoli. Journal. Pract., 1–23. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2022.2153074 Canary H. E. Clark Y. K. Holton A. (2018). Structurating expanded genetic carrier screening: a longitudinal analysis of online news coverage. J. Health Commun. 23, 534–541. doi: 10.1080/10810730.2018.1477884, PMID: 29799365 Candela A. Pasquarè Mariotto F. (2016). Italian news coverage of radiation in the early decades of the twentieth century: A qualitative and quantitative analysis. Public Underst. Sci. 25, 236–251. doi: 10.1177/0963662514548135, PMID: 25186561 Carah N. Van Horen A. (2011). Drinkwise, enjoy responsibly: news frames, branding and alcohol. Media Int. Aust. 141, 5–16. doi: 10.1177/1329878X1114100103 Casero-Ripolles A. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 on the media system. Communicative and democratic consequences of news consumption during the outbreak. El Profesional de La Inform. 29. doi: 10.3145/epi.2020.mar.23 Catalán-Matamoros D. Peñafiel-Saiz C. (2019). Specialty matters. Analysis of health journalists’ coverage about vaccines. El Profesional de La Inform. 28. doi: 10.3145/epi.2019.mar.01 Chan M. Hu P. Mak K. F. (2022). Mediation analysis and warranted inferences in media and communication research: examining research Design in Communication Journals From 1996 to 2017. J. Mass Commun. Q. 99, 463–486. doi: 10.1177/1077699020961519 Chew F. Mandelbaum-Schmid J. Gao S. K. (2006). Can health journalists bridge the state-of-the-science gap in mammography guidelines? Sci. Commun. 27, 331–351. doi: 10.1177/1075547005284751 Clarke C. E. (2011). A case of conflicting norms? Mobilizing and accountability information in newspaper coverage of the autism–vaccine controversy. Public Underst. Sci. 20, 609–626. doi: 10.1177/0963662509359490, PMID: 22164703 Conrad D. (2015). The freelancer–NGO Alliance: what a story of Kenyan waste reveals about contemporary foreign news production. Journal. Stud. 16, 275–288. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2013.872418 Culbertson H. M. Denbow C. J. Stempel G. H. (1998). Needs and beliefs in construct accessibility: keys to new understanding. Public Relat. Rev. 24, 125–143. doi: 10.1016/S0363-8111(99)80047-2 Cushion S. Morani M. Kyriakidou M. Soo N. (2022). Why media systems matter: A fact-checking study of UK television news during the coronavirus pandemic. Digit. Journal. 10, 698–716. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1965490 Damanhoury K. E. Coppini D. Johnson B. Rodriguez G. (2022). Local news in Colorado: comparing journalism quality across four counties. Journal. Pract., 1–22. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2022.2083003 Davis S. (2017). Citizen health journalism: negotiating between political engagement and professional identity in a media training program for healthcare workers. Journal. Pract. 11, 319–335. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2016.1230022 De Dobbelaer R. Van Leuven S. Raeymaeckers K. (2018). The human face of health news: A multi-method analysis of sourcing practices in health-related news in Belgian magazines. Health Commun. 33, 611–619. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1287237 De Meo P. Ferrara E. Fiumara G. Provetti A. (2011). “Generalized Louvain method for community detection in large networks.” in 2011 11th International conference on intelligent systems design and applications. pp. 88–93. Deprez A. Van Leuven S. (2018). About Pseudo quarrels and trustworthiness: A multi-method study of health journalism, sourcing practices and twitter. Journal. Stud. 19, 1257–1274. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2016.1266910 Derviş H. (2020). Bibliometric analysis using bibliometrix an R package. J. Sci. Res. 8, 156–160. doi: 10.5530/jscires.8.3.32 Djerf-Pierre M. Ekström M. Johansson B. (2013). Policy failure or moral scandal? Political accountability, journalism and new public management. Media Cult. Soc. 35, 960–976. doi: 10.1177/0163443713501932, PMID: 39147427 Edwards S. N. (2022). Understanding the present through the past: a comparison of Spanish news coverage of the 1918 flu and COVID-19 pandemics. J. Mass Commun. Q. 99, 12–43. doi: 10.1177/10776990211061762 Egelhofer J. L. Boyer M. Lecheler S. Aaldering L. (2022). Populist attitudes and politicians’ disinformation accusations: effects on perceptions of media and politicians. J. Commun. 72, 619–632. doi: 10.1093/joc/jqac031 Ersoy M. Dambo T. H. (2023). Covering the Covid-19 pandemic using peace journalism approach. Journal. Pract. 17, 841–858. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2021.1945482 Fedtke J. Ibahrine M. Zaid B. Shin D. D. (2023). Containing a corona misinfodemic and covidiocy: political talk shows on German public-service TV. Journal. Pract. 17, 1740–1754. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2021.2004201 Fonn B. K. Hyde-Clarke N. (2023). Media consensus and divergences in Norway during the second wave of coronavirus infections. Journal. Pract. 17, 1465–1481. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2021.2001358 Furlan P. (2016). Australian medical/health journalists on the value of science-based education and training. Asia Pacific Med. Educ. 26, 175–188. doi: 10.1177/1326365X16669194 Garfield E. (2006). The history and meaning of the journal impact factor. JAMA 295:90. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.1.90, PMID: 16391221 Garnier M. Tamás P. A. Van Wessel M. Van Bommel S. (2022). Something wicked this way comes: how well did UK newspapers support the public debate of avian influenza as a wicked problem? Journalism 23, 2012–2035. doi: 10.1177/1464884920977781 Gearhart S. Trumbly-Lamsam T. Adegbola O. (2018). Why Isn’t health a priority?: A survey of journalists serving native American news media. Journal. Pract. 12, 1183–1200. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2017.1363658 Gibbons A. (2020). Crisis of policy reporting: evidence from Australian election campaigns, 2001–2013. Journal. Stud. 21, 615–635. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2019.1697855 Gill E. A. Babrow A. S. (2007). To Hope or to know: coping with uncertainty and ambivalence in women’s magazine breast cancer articles. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 35, 133–155. doi: 10.1080/00909880701263029, PMID: 39151061 González Santos S. P. Stephens N. Dimond R. (2018). Narrating the first “three-parent baby”: the initial press reactions from the United Kingdom, the United States, and Mexico. Sci. Commun. 40, 419–441. doi: 10.1177/1075547018772312 Graves L. Bélair-Gagnon V. Larsen R. (2023). From public reason to public health: professional implications of the “debunking turn” in the global fact-checking field. Digit. Journal., 1–20. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2218454 Grimm J. Schwartz J. (2021). HIV and anniversary journalism: susceptibility and severity messaging in news coverage of world AIDS day. Journal. Pract. 15, 271–287. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1701528 Grubic A. (2023). Get your head out of the game: framing of sportswomen and concussions. Fem. Media Stud., 1–16. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2023.2267790 Guerrero-Bote V. P. Chinchilla-Rodríguez Z. Mendoza A. De Moya-Anegón F. (2021). Comparative analysis of the bibliographic data sources dimensions and Scopus: an approach at the country and institutional levels. Front. Res. Met. Anal. 5:593494. doi: 10.3389/frma.2020.593494, PMID: 33870055 Guo Y.-M. Huang Z.-L. Guo J. Li H. Guo X.-R. Nkeli M. J. (2019). Bibliometric analysis on smart cities research. Sustain. For. 11:3606. doi: 10.3390/su11133606, PMID: 38711639 Hallin D. C. Briggs C. L. (2015). Transcending the medical/media opposition in research on news coverage of health and medicine. Media Cult. Soc. 37, 85–100. doi: 10.1177/0163443714549090 Hallin D. C. Figenschou T. U. Thorbjørnsrud K. (2021). Biomedicalization and media in comparative perspective: audiences, frames, and actors in Norwegian, Spanish, U.K. and U.S. Health News. Int. J. Press/Politics 26, 699–718. doi: 10.1177/1940161220960415 Hamusokwe B. N. Ncube L. Phiri-Chibbonta C. Tembo J. Mambwe E. (2022). The reproduction of power and jargon in COVID-19 coverage in Zambian media: an analysis of the Zambia daily mail and Mwebantu. Journal. Pract., 1–16. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2022.2048204 Hanitzsch T. (2004). Journalists as peacekeeping force? Peace journalism and mass communication theory. Journal. Stud. 5, 483–495. doi: 10.1080/14616700412331296419 Hinnant A. Hu S. Hong Y. Young R. (2023). Contested certainty and credibility: the effect of personal stories and scientific evidence in user comments on news story evaluation and relevance. Sci. Commun. 45, 65–94. doi: 10.1177/10755470221150503 Hinnant A. Jenkins J. Subramanian R. (2016). Health journalist role conceptions: existing and emerging professional identities. Journal. Pract. 10, 763–781. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2015.1053509 Hinnant A. Len-Ríos M. E. (2009). Tacit understandings of health literacy: interview and survey research with health journalists. Sci. Commun. 31, 84–115. doi: 10.1177/1075547009335345 Hinnant A. Len-Ríos M. E. Young R. (2013). Journalistic use of exemplars to humanize health news. Journal. Stud. 14, 539–554. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2012.721633, PMID: 24376370 Hinnant A. Subramanian R. Ashley R. R. Perreault M. Young R. Thomas R. J. (2019). How journalists characterize health inequalities and redefine solutions for native American audiences. Health Commun. 34, 383–391. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2017.1405482 Hirsch J. E. (2005). An index to quantify an individual’s scientific research output. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 102, 16569–16572. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0507655102, PMID: 16275915 Ho Y.-S. (2014). Classic articles on social work field in social science citation index: A bibliometric analysis. Scientometrics 98, 137–155. doi: 10.1007/s11192-013-1014-8 Holland K. (2018). Making mental health news: Australian journalists’ views on news values, sources and reporting challenges. Journal. Stud. 19, 1767–1785. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2017.1304826 Holland K. Blood R. W. (2013). Public responses and reflexivity during the swine flu pandemic in Australia. Journal. Stud. 14, 523–538. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2012.744552 Holland K. Sweet M. Blood R. W. Fogarty A. (2014). A legacy of the swine flu global pandemic: journalists, expert sources, and conflicts of interest. Journalism 15, 53–71. doi: 10.1177/1464884913480460 Holton A. E. (2016). Intrapreneurial informants: an emergent role of freelance journalists. Journal. Pract. 10, 917–927. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2016.1166069 Holton A. E. Molyneux L. (2017). Identity lost? The personal impact of brand journalism. Journalism 18, 195–210. doi: 10.1177/1464884915608816 Huh S. (2017). How to successfully list a journal in the social science citation index or science citation index expanded. Kor. J. Med. Educ. 29, 221–228. doi: 10.3946/kjme.2017.68, PMID: 29207453 Hurley R. J. Riles J. M. Sangalang A. (2014). Online Cancer news: trends regarding article types, specific cancers, and the cancer continuum. Health Commun. 29, 41–50. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.715538 Jarneving B. (2005). A comparison of two bibliometric methods for mapping of the research front. Scientometrics 65, 245–263. doi: 10.1007/s11192-005-0270-7 Jiang S. (2022). The roles of worry, social media information overload, and social media fatigue in hindering health fact-checking. Soc. Med. Soc. 8:205630512211130. doi: 10.1177/20563051221113070 Kalfeli N. Frangonikolopoulos C. Gardikiotis A. (2022). Expanding peace journalism: a new model for analyzing media representations of immigration. Journalism 23, 1789–1806. doi: 10.1177/1464884920969089 Keshvari M. Yamani N. Adibi P. Shahnazi H. (2018). Health journalism: health reporting status and challenges. Iran. J. Nurs. Midwifery Res. 23, 14–17. doi: 10.4103/ijnmr.IJNMR_158_16, PMID: 29344040 Kessler M. M. (1963). Bibliographic coupling between scientific papers. Am. Doc. 14, 10–25. doi: 10.1002/asi.5090140103, PMID: 38817839 Kim Y. C. Shim M. Kim J. H. Park K. (2017). Factors affecting the “locus of responsibility” in cancer news: focusing on the role of health journalists’ medical expertise in South Korea. J. Mass Commun. Q. 94, 465–485. doi: 10.1177/1077699017700361 Kleminski R. Kazienko P. Kajdanowicz T. (2022). Analysis of direct citation, co-citation and bibliographic coupling in scientific topic identification. J. Inf. Sci. 48, 349–373. doi: 10.1177/0165551520962775, PMID: 36833921 Klemm C. Das E. Hartmann T. (2019). Changed priorities ahead: journalists’ shifting role perceptions when covering public health crises. Journalism 20, 1223–1241. doi: 10.1177/1464884917692820, PMID: 34253953 Kline K. N. (2006). A decade of research on health content in the media: the focus on health challenges and sociocultural context and attendant informational and ideological problems. J. Health Commun. 11, 43–59. doi: 10.1080/10810730500461067, PMID: 16546918 Kothari A. (2018). NGOs and health reporting in Tanzania. Afr. J. Stud. 39, 42–60. doi: 10.1080/23743670.2018.1473267, PMID: 36721158 Kristensen N. N. From U. (2015). Cultural journalism and cultural critique in a changing media landscape. Journal. Pract. 9, 760–772. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2015.1051357 Kruvand M. (2012). “Dr. soundbite”: the making of an expert source in science and medical stories. Sci. Commun. 34, 566–591. doi: 10.1177/1075547011434991, PMID: 23402260 LaPoe V. L. Carter Olson C. S. Azocar C. L. LaPoe B. R. Hazarika B. Jain P. (2022). A comparative analysis of health news in indigenous and mainstream media. Health Commun. 37, 1192–1203. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2021.1945179, PMID: 34193004 Lawrence R. G. Schafer M. L. (2012). Debunking Sarah Palin: Mainstream news coverage of ‘death panels. Journalism 13, 766–782. doi: 10.1177/1464884911431389 Lee S. T. Basnyat I. (2013). From press release to news: mapping the framing of the 2009 H1N1 A influenza pandemic. Health Commun. 28, 119–132. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2012.658550, PMID: 22439616 Leidecker-Sandmann M. Attar P. Schütz A. Lehmkuhl M. (2022). Selected by expertise? Scientific experts in German news coverage of COVID-19 compared to other pandemics. Public Underst. Sci. 31, 847–866. doi: 10.1177/09636625221095740, PMID: 35723453 Len-Ríos M. E. Bhandari M. Medvedeva Y. S. (2014). Deliberation of the scientific evidence for breastfeeding: online comments as social representations. Sci. Commun. 36, 778–801. doi: 10.1177/1075547014556195 Lindgren M. Jorgensen B. (2023). Podcasting and constructive journalism in health stories about antimicrobial resistance (AMR). Media Int. Aust. 187, 73–87. doi: 10.1177/1329878X221148499 Lopera-Pareja E. H. Cano-Orón L. (2022). Media’s portrayal of CAM: exploring 40 years of narratives and meanings in public discourse. Journalism 23, 2171–2191. doi: 10.1177/1464884920985407 Løvlie A. S. Waagstein A. Hyldgård P. (2023). “How trustworthy is this research?” designing a tool to help readers understand evidence and uncertainty in science journalism. Digit. Journal. 11, 431–464. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2023.2193344 Lublinski J. Reichert I. Denis A. Fleury J.-M. Labassi O. Spurk C. (2014). Advances in African and Arab science journalism: capacity building and new newsroom structures through digital peer-to-peer support. Ecquid Novi Afr. J. Stud. 35, 4–22. doi: 10.1080/02560054.2014.919945 Luce A. Jackson D. Thorsen E. (2017). Citizen journalism at the margins. Journal. Pract. 11, 266–284. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2016.1222883 Lynch J. Bennett D. Luntz A. Toy C. VanBenschoten E. (2014). Bridging science and journalism: identifying the role of public relations in the construction and circulation of stem cell research among laypeople. Sci. Commun. 36, 479–501. doi: 10.1177/1075547014533661 MacGregor S. Cooper A. (2020). Blending research, journalism, and community expertise: a case study of coproduction in research communication. Sci. Commun. 42, 340–368. doi: 10.1177/1075547020927032 Maier S. R. Slovic P. Mayorga M. (2017). Reader reaction to news of mass suffering: assessing the influence of story form and emotional response. Journalism 18, 1011–1029. doi: 10.1177/1464884916663597 Manganello S. A. (2017). Public libraries and the economically disadvantaged: A bibliometric assessment of published research, 1996-2016. SLIS Connect. 6, 55–64. doi: 10.18785/slis.0601.08 Mannell K. Meese J. (2022). From doom-scrolling to news avoidance: limiting news as a wellbeing strategy during COVID lockdown. Journal. Stud. 23, 302–319. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.2021105 Martínez-García L. Ferrer I. (2023). Fact-checking journalism: A palliative against the COVID-19 Infodemic in Ibero-America. J. Mass Commun. Q. 100, 264–285. doi: 10.1177/10776990231164168, PMID: 38602932 Martín-Martín A. Thelwall M. Orduna-Malea E. Delgado López-Cózar E. (2021). Google scholar, microsoft academic, scopus, dimensions, web of science, and opencitations’ COCI: a multidisciplinary comparison of coverage via citations. Scientometrics 126, 871–906. doi: 10.1007/s11192-020-03690-4, PMID: 32981987 Matar D. Taha M. (2023). Arab news sources and practices in times of crisis: challenges and opportunities for sociology of news research. Journal. Stud., 1–16. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2023.2190827 Mathieu D. (2016). Users’ encounter with normative discourses on Facebook: a three-pronged analysis of user agency as power structure, nexus, and reception. Soc. Med. Soc. 2:205630511668320. doi: 10.1177/2056305116683206 Matthews J. Zhao X. Jackson D. Thorsen E. Mellado C. Abuali Y. . (2024). Sourcing UK COVID-19 news: an analysis of sourcing patterns of 15 UK news outlets reporting on COVID-19 across Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Health Commun. 39, 173–182. doi: 10.1080/10410236.2022.2162702, PMID: 36642857 Mbarga G. Lublinski J. Fleury J.-M. (2012). New perspectives on strengthening science journalism in developing countries: approach and first results of the ‘SjCOOP’ mentoring project. J. Afr. Media Stud. 4, 157–172. doi: 10.1386/jams.4.2.157_1 McMillan S. J. Hoy M. G. Kim J. McMahan C. (2008). A multifaceted tool for a complex phenomenon: coding web-based interactivity as technologies for interaction evolve. J. Comput.-Mediat. Commun. 13, 794–826. doi: 10.1111/j.1083-6101.2008.00420.x Mellado C. Hallin D. Cárcamo L. Alfaro R. Jackson D. Humanes M. L. . (2021). Sourcing pandemic news: a cross-National Computational Analysis of mainstream media coverage of COVID-19 on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Digit. Journal. 9, 1261–1285. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1942114 Mercado-Martinez F. Robles L. (2001). Inconsistent journalism: the coverage of chronic diseases in the Mexican press. J. Health Commun. 6, 235–247. doi: 10.1080/108107301752384424, PMID: 11550591 Meyer C. Van Schalkwyk F. (2023). Framing Covid-19 in the south African news media: an analysis of 22 months of reporting. Journal. Stud., 1–21. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2023.2232473 Miah A. (2005). Genetics, cyberspace and bioethics: why not a public engagement with ethics? Public Underst. Sci. 14, 409–421. doi: 10.1177/0963662505056616, PMID: 30499434 Michelle C. (2007). `human clones talk about their lives’: media representations of assisted reproductive and biogenetic technologies. Media Cult. Soc. 29, 639–663. doi: 10.1177/0163443707078425 Middleweek B. (2022). What is sex journalism or, rather, how does it become? Interviews with news workers on the risk and precarity of a gendered news niche. Journalism 23, 1114–1131. doi: 10.1177/1464884920952267, PMID: 39150134 Milutinović I. (2021). Media framing of COVID-19 pandemic in the transitional regime of Serbia: exploring discourses and strategies. Media Cult. Soc. 43, 1311–1327. doi: 10.1177/0163443720986003 Mohammadi S. Ramezankhani A. Montazeri A. Nasrollahi A. Keshavarz Mohammadi N. (2021). Why medical journalism wins public health journalism: systems thinking recommendations for health-promoting media. Health Educ. 121, 161–173. doi: 10.1108/HE-05-2020-0033 Molyneux L. Holton A. (2015). Branding (health) journalism: perceptions, practices, and emerging norms. Digit. Journal. 3, 225–242. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2014.906927 Moon M. (2015). Cosmetic surgery as a commodity for ‘sale’ in online news. Asian J. Commun. 25, 102–113. doi: 10.1080/01292986.2014.996167 Moors M. R. (2019). What is Flint? Place, storytelling, and social media narrative reclamation during the Flint water crisis. Inf. Commun. Soc. 22, 808–822. doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2019.1577477 Morris S. A. Van Der Veer Martens B. (2008). Mapping research specialties. Annu. Rev. Inf. Sci. Technol. 42, 213–295. doi: 10.1002/aris.2008.1440420113, PMID: 39151111 Mukerjee S. Yang T. Peng Y. (2023). Metrics in action: how social media metrics shape news production on Facebook. J. Commun. 73, 260–272. doi: 10.1093/joc/jqad012 Muresan R. Salcudean M. (2023). “We write to dismantle prejudices, myths and lies”: the role of journalists in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign in Romania. Journal. Stud. 24, 108–127. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2022.2150262 Mututwa W. T. Mare A. (2021). Competing or complimentary actors in the journalistic field? An analysis of the mediation of the COVID-19 pandemic by mainstream and peripheral content creators in Zimbabwe. Afr. J. Stud. 42, 82–98. doi: 10.1080/23743670.2022.2031244, PMID: 39151219 Nash C. (2013). Journalism as a research discipline. Pac. Journal. Rev. 19, 123–135. doi: 10.24135/pjr.v19i2.221 North L. (2016). The gender of “soft” and “hard” news: female journalists’ views on gendered story allocations. Journal. Stud. 17, 356–373. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2014.987551 Odriozola-Chéné J. Díaz-Noci J. Serrano-Tellería A. Pérez-Arozamena R. Pérez-Altable L. Linares-Lanzman J. . (2020). Inequality in times of pandemics: how online media are starting to treat the economic consequences of the coronavirus crisis. El Profesional de La Inform. 29. doi: 10.3145/epi.2020.jul.03 Overgaard C. S. B. (2021). Constructive journalism in the face of a crisis: the effects of social media news updates about COVID-19. Journal. Stud. 22, 1875–1893. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2021.1971107 Owen T. (2018). Twenty one years of HIV/AIDS medicines in the newspaper: patents, protest, and philanthropy. Media Cult. Soc. 40, 75–93. doi: 10.1177/0163443717703795 Pae C.-U. (2015). Why systematic review rather than narrative review? Psychiatry Investig. 12:417. doi: 10.4306/pi.2015.12.3.417, PMID: 26207140 Peng M. (2020). Outbreak of COVID-19: an emerging global pandemic threat. Biomed. Pharmacother. 129:110499. doi: 10.1016/j.biopha.2020.110499, PMID: 32768974 Perko T. Prezelj I. Cantone M. C. Oughton D. H. Tomkiv Y. Gallego E. (2019). Fukushima through the prism of chernobyl: how newspapers in Europe and Russia used past nuclear accidents. Environ. Commun. 13, 527–545. doi: 10.1080/17524032.2018.1444661 Pranckutė R. (2021). Web of science (WoS) and Scopus: the titans of bibliographic information in Today’s academic world. Publica 9:12. doi: 10.3390/publications9010012 Price D. J. D. S. (1965). Networks of scientific papers: the pattern of bibliographic references indicates the nature of the scientific research front. Science 149, 510–515. doi: 10.1126/science.149.3683.510, PMID: 14325149 Pritchard A. Wittig G. R. (1981). Bibliometrics: A bibliography and index. Watford: ALLM Books. Rafter K. Knowlton S. (2013). “VERY SHOCKING NEWS”: journalism and reporting on a politician’s illness. Journal. Stud. 14, 355–370. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2012.680813, PMID: 30873047 Ratcliff C. L. (2021). Communicating scientific uncertainty across the dissemination trajectory: a precision medicine case study. Sci. Commun. 43, 597–623. doi: 10.1177/10755470211038335 Raza S. H. Ogadimma E. C. Shah A. A. Gorpe S. (2023). Improving community health message reception through digital journalistic practices: mixed-method evidence on health preventive behaviors and health podcast framing for emerging health issues. Journalism:14648849231194170. doi: 10.1177/14648849231194170 Ren C. Dan V. (2022). Frames and journalistic roles in Chinese reporting on HIV: insights from a content analysis and interviews focused on verbal and visual modalities. Journal. Stud. 23, 1327–1349. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2022.2084145 Ren J. Peters H. P. Allgaier J. Lo Y.-Y. (2014). Similar challenges but different responses: media coverage of measles vaccination in the UK and China. Public Underst. Sci. 23, 366–375. doi: 10.1177/0963662512445012, PMID: 23825271 Riesch H. (2011). Changing news: re-adjusting science studies to online newspapers. Public Underst. Sci. 20, 771–777. doi: 10.1177/0963662510376342, PMID: 22397084 Rosen C. Guenther L. Froehlich K. (2016). The question of newsworthiness: A cross-comparison among science journalists’ selection criteria in Argentina, France, and Germany. Sci. Commun. 38, 328–355. doi: 10.1177/1075547016645585 Ross Arguedas A. A. (2020). Medicalization in the media: news coverage of a new and uncertain diagnosis. Journal. Pract. 14, 1087–1105. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2019.1684832 Ross Arguedas A. A. (2021). Making an expert: sources and their contributions in news coverage of orthorexia nervosa. Journalism 22, 2222–2239. doi: 10.1177/1464884919859709 Ross K. Boyle K. Carter C. Ging D. (2018). Women, men and news: it’s life, Jim, but not as we know it. Journal. Stud. 19, 824–845. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2016.1222884 Sadri S. R. Buzzelli N. R. Gentile P. Billings A. C. (2022). Sports journalism content when no sports occur: framing athletics amidst the COVID-19 International pandemic. Commun. Sport 10, 493–516. doi: 10.1177/21674795211001937, PMID: 37519931 Saikkonen S. (2019). Interpreting expertise: Finnish journalists’ accounts on journalistic judgement of expertise on healthy eating. Journalism 20, 1547–1563. doi: 10.1177/1464884917708865 Sampsel L. J. (2018). Voyant tools. Music. Ref. Serv. Q. 21, 153–157. doi: 10.1080/10588167.2018.1496754, PMID: 34760902 Sandberg H. (2007). A matter of looks: the framing of obesity in four Swedish daily newspapers. Communication 32, 447–472. doi: 10.1515/COMMUN.2007.018 Sang Y. Lee J. Y. Park S. (2023). The production and consumption of news podcasts. Media Int. Aust. 187, 3–7. doi: 10.1177/1329878X231159423, PMID: 22666954 Schatto-Eckrodt T. Janzik R. Reer F. Boberg S. Quandt T. (2020). A computational approach to analyzing the twitter debate on gaming disorder. Media Commun. 8, 205–218. doi: 10.17645/mac.v8i3.3128 Schultz T. (2023). A survey of U.S. science journalists’ knowledge and opinions of open access research. Int. J. Commun. 17, 2732–2753. Schwitzer G. (2010). The future of health journalism. Public Health Forum 18, 19–20. doi: 10.1016/j.phf.2010.06.012, PMID: 39149772 Sehat C. M. (2022). Journalistic values and expertise in platform news distribution: the possibilities and limitations of participatory panels for algorithmic governance. Journal. Stud. 23, 1225–1246. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2022.2077808 Shibata N. Kajikawa Y. Takeda Y. Matsushima K. (2009). Comparative study on methods of detecting research fronts using different types of citation. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 60, 571–580. doi: 10.1002/asi.20994 Slopen N. B. Watson A. C. Gracia G. Corrigan P. W. (2007). Age analysis of newspaper coverage of mental illness. J. Health Commun. 12, 3–15. doi: 10.1080/10810730601091292, PMID: 17365345 Small H. (1973). Co-citation in the scientific literature: A new measure of the relationship between two documents. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. 24, 265–269. doi: 10.1002/asi.4630240406, PMID: 38148818 Small H. G. Crane D. (1979). Specialties and disciplines in science and social science: an examination of their structure using citation indexes. Scientometrics 1, 445–461. doi: 10.1007/BF02016661 Stroobant J. De Dobbelaer R. Raeymaeckers K. (2018). Tracing the sources: a comparative content analysis of Belgian health news. Journal. Pract. 12, 344–361. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2017.1294027 Stroobant J. Van Den Bogaert S. Raeymaeckers K. (2019). When medicine meets media: how health news is co-produced between health and media professionals. Journal. Stud. 20, 1828–1845. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2018.1539344 Strydhorst N. A. Landrum A. R. (2022). Charting cognition: mapping public understanding of COVID-19. Public Underst. Sci. 31, 534–552. doi: 10.1177/09636625221078462, PMID: 35274566 Suran M. Holton A. E. Coleman R. (2014). Topical punch: health topics as drivers of idiosyncratic reader responses to online news. J. Mass Commun. Q. 91, 725–739. doi: 10.1177/1077699014550093 Sweet M. Pearson L. Dudgeon P. (2013). @Indigenousx: a case study of community-led innovation in digital media. Media Int. Aust. 149, 104–111. doi: 10.1177/1329878X1314900112 Tinga T. Pruchniewska U. Buozis M. Kute L. (2023). Gendered discourses of control in global journalism: women’s bodies in CNN’s Zika reporting. Fem. Media Stud. 23, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2018.1426619 Trifonova Price L. Antonova V. (2024). Challenges and opportunities for journalism in the Bulgarian COVID-19 communication ecology. Journal. Pract. 18, 119–136. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2022.2118154 Tsai J.-Y. Bosse R. Sridharan N. Chadha M. (2022). Reclaiming the narratives: situated multidimensional representation of underserved indigenous communities through citizen-driven reporting. Journalism 23, 2132–2152. doi: 10.1177/1464884920983261 Tshabangu T. Salawu A. (2021). An evaluation of constructive journalism in Zimbabwe: a case study of the Herald’s coverage of the coronavirus pandemic. J. Afr. Media Stud. 13, 477–490. doi: 10.1386/jams_00060_1 Tshabangu T. Salawu A. (2022). Indigenous-language media research in Africa: gains, losses, towards a new research agenda. Afr. J. Stud. 43, 1–16. doi: 10.1080/23743670.2021.1998787 Van Antwerpen N. Searston R. A. Turnbull D. Hermans L. Kovacevic P. (2023a). The effects of constructive journalism techniques on mood, comprehension, and trust. Journalism 24, 2294–2317. doi: 10.1177/14648849221105778, PMID: 35894932 Van Antwerpen N. Turnbull D. Searston R. A. (2022). What’s positive in a pandemic? Journalism professionals’ perspectives on constructive approaches to COVID-19 news reporting. Journal. Stud. 23, 506–524. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2022.2032804 Van Antwerpen N. Turnbull D. Searston R. A. (2023b). Perspectives from journalism professionals on the application and benefits of constructive reporting for addressing misinformation. Int. J. Press/Politics 28, 1037–1058. doi: 10.1177/19401612211072782 Van Eck N. J. Waltman L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 84, 523–538. doi: 10.1007/s11192-009-0146-3, PMID: 20585380 Vasterman P. Scholten O. Ruigrok N. (2008). A model for evaluating risk reporting: the case of UMTS and fine particles. Eur. J. Commun. 23, 319–341. doi: 10.1177/0267323108092538 Vestergaard G. L. Nielsen K. H. (2016). Science news in a closed and an open media market: A comparative content analysis of print and online science news in Denmark and the United Kingdom. Eur. J. Commun. 31, 661–677. doi: 10.1177/0267323116674110 Viswanath K. Blake K. D. Meissner H. I. Saiontz N. G. Mull C. Freeman C. S. . (2008). Occupational practices and the making of health news: a National Survey of U.S. health and medical science journalists. J. Health Commun. 13, 759–777. doi: 10.1080/10810730802487430, PMID: 19051112 Walker D. Boling K. (2023). Black maternal mortality in the media: how journalists cover a deadly racial disparity. Journalism 24, 1536–1553. doi: 10.1177/14648849211063361 Walker S. L. Viaña J. N. (2023). Mindful mindfulness reporting: media portrayals of scientific evidence for meditation mobile apps. Public Underst. Sci. 32, 561–579. doi: 10.1177/09636625221147794, PMID: 36734473 Wang P. Deng X. Liu Y. Guo L. Zhu J. Fu L. . (2022). A knowledge discovery method for landslide monitoring based on K-Core decomposition and the Louvain algorithm. ISPRS Int. J. Geo Inf. 11:217. doi: 10.3390/ijgi11040217 Wenzel A. Gerson D. Moreno E. Son M. Morrison Hawkins B. (2018). Engaging stigmatized communities through solutions journalism: residents of South Los Angeles respond. Journalism 19, 649–667. doi: 10.1177/1464884917703125 Wheatley D. (2020). Victims and voices: journalistic sourcing practices and the use of private citizens in online healthcare-system news. Journal. Stud. 21, 1017–1036. doi: 10.1080/1461670X.2020.1727355 Williams S. (2021). More than numbers: an intersectional examination of media portrayals of formerly incarcerated women Gladys and Jamie Scott. Fem. Media Stud. 21, 1322–1337. doi: 10.1080/14680777.2021.1984271 Wollnik S. (2021). The societal importance of journalistic health reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic in sub-Saharan Africa: impressions from science and health journalism organizations. J. Afr. Media Stud. 13, 139–158. doi: 10.1386/jams_00040_1 Wondemaghen M. (2023). The print press and its politicization of public health: the case of COVID-19. Journalism 24, 2821–2840. doi: 10.1177/14648849231200137 Wu S. (2021). Data “objectivity” in a time of coronavirus: uncovering the potential impact of state influence on the production of data-driven news. Digit. Journal. 9, 1303–1320. doi: 10.1080/21670811.2021.1942111 Xu D. Yin X. Zhou S. Jiang Y. Xi X. Sun H. . (2022). A review on the remediation of microplastics using constructed wetlands: bibliometric, co-occurrence, current trends, and future directions. Chemosphere 303:134990. doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2022.134990, PMID: 35640685 Ytreberg E. Thorbjørnsrud K. (2020). Agencies and experiences of the “good participant”: the long-term trajectories of patients turned media participants. Int. J. Commun. 14, 6182–6198. Zhang Y. Jin Y. Stewart S. Porter J. (2016). Framing responsibility for depression: how U.S. news media attribute causal and problem-solving responsibilities when covering a major public health problem. J. Appl. Commun. Res. 44, 118–135. doi: 10.1080/00909882.2016.1155728 Zhang X. Zhu R. (2022). Health journalists’ social media sourcing during the early outbreak of the public health emergency. Journal. Pract., 1–21. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2022.2110927 Zhao D. (2009). Mapping library and information science: does field delineation matter? Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 46, 1–11. doi: 10.1002/meet.2009.1450460279 Zhao X. Matthews J. Jackson D. Mellado C. Abuali Y. Thorsen E. . (2023). Patterns of journalistic role performance during public health crises: covering COVID-19 in the UK. Journal. Pract., 1–19. doi: 10.1080/17512786.2023.2259875 Zhao D. Strotmann A. (2008). Author bibliographic coupling: another approach to citation-based author knowledge network analysis. Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 45, 1–10. doi: 10.1002/meet.2008.1450450292 Zhao D. Strotmann A. (2015). Analysis and visualization of citation networks: Springer International Publishing. Zimdars M. Cullinan M. E. Na K. (2023). Alternative health groups on social media, misinformation, and the (de)stabilization of ontological security. New Media Soc.:146144482211461. doi: 10.1177/14614448221146171 Zupic I. Čater T. (2015). Bibliometric methods in management and organization. Organ. Res. Methods 18, 429–472. doi: 10.1177/1094428114562629