The Power of Framing in Medical Research Communication: Why It Matters

There was a viral medical research story going around in 2018, with the title “Federal study finds marijuana 100X less toxic than alcohol, safer than tobacco.” While the headline successfully triggered conversations,  scientists who took a closer look found that it may have been misleading. This is just an example of the power (and responsibility) that everyone who frequently crafts medical and health research communication wields.

While this is an extreme example of misleading communication, medical researchers and healthcare professionals who regularly communicate critical health-related information or research have to recognize the importance of framing their communications well.

Framing as a lens

When a study says the drug efficacy is 90%, as opposed to the fact that there’s a chance of 10% failure, both statements use the same data, but the first may feel more reassuring, while the second leans towards being more cautionary. That difference comes from how they are framed, i.e., how you shape them. Every time you share research findings or health information, you make choices about what to say and how to say it. These choices shape how people understand the message, what they focus on, and how they feel about it. Think of framing as a lens—the frame you use doesn’t change the facts, but it can change how those facts are seen.

But does framing really matter? Yes, because people don’t approach health messages like blank slates. They come with existing beliefs, emotions, and experiences. The way a message is framed can either resonate and make sense or feel confusing or even intimidating. There are two major types of framing:

• Emphasis framing means highlighting the most relevant information for your audience, while still including all necessary information and findings. In medical research communication, you might lead with the main finding, for instance, “The new drug reduced symptoms by 30%”, while other information can follow. However, it is important to note that omitting important information would be unethical, which can risk eroding trust. Used responsibly, emphasis framing helps your audience zero in on what matters most—without ever losing sight of the whole picture.
• Equivalency framing is about diverse ways facts presented so they resonate differently—without changing the interpretation or underlying data. The image is the same, but the mood shifts. In the context of medical research communications, “4 out of 100 participants showed improvement” can also be presented as “4% of trial participants showed improvement,” depending on your audience’s preference. When employed effectively, equivalency framing can ensure the research findings can be tailored so your audience gets the clearest, most appropriate data, all while staying rigorously accurate.

Let’s look at a practical example. A recent editorial titled, “Understanding Framing of Public Health Issues and Its Relevance in Climate Change Policy Discourse,” published in Preventive Medicine Research & Reviews, dives deep into the learnings of different types of health communication framing during the COVID-19 pandemic. In the early days of the COVID-19 crisis, when information about the virus was framed as an urgent, life-or-death threat, the “fear” approach helped people understand the danger, and take preventative actions. While this helped people, when not framed well, it can also go awry. A study found that when messages talked about “the virus from China,” people began to view Asian Americans more negatively and even wanted resources kept “for us” rather than shared with everyone. That’s an example of harmful communication framing. While it was factually true that the outbreak began in China but emphasizing it that way fueled prejudice.

Framing theory also explains why these choices work on the mind. It outlines check points a message must pass through to influence how someone thinks:

• Availability indicates whether your audience has the building blocks needed to get your message. If they don’t have any familiarity or background information about the topic at hand, no amount of clever framing will stick. Knowing this information can help you decide when you need to set context or educate first before you get to the crux of your message.
• Accessibility can be the factor that shows how to surface those beliefs at the right moment. Even if people know something, if your wording is dense or unclear, or if your examples are not suitable, those facts won’t leap to mind. By using clear language and relevant examples, you can ensure that the right ideas “pop up” in people’s minds when they need them.
• Applicability indicates that activated beliefs must feel personally relevant. In other words, when you know your audience well, you can ensure that you frame your communication around issues or factors that will be appealing to them, their needs and priorities. Consider this: “Does this matter to my audience today?” They weigh the activated belief against their own situation and decide whether to let it shape their opinion or behavior.

When your research communication passes all three stages, available in memory, made accessible by your framing, and judged applicable by the audience, it can potentially influence their perception, understanding, and action. Understanding this can help you design your communication so that your research not only stays accurate but also lands exactly how you want it to.