Digital Media Coverage of Innovations: Diffusion Factors in Content

Abstract

Introduction. Accessability and new technologies make mass media an important mean of informing audiences about scientific and technological innovations. Relevance and purpose. The aim of the research is to find how Ukrainian digital media contribute to a diffusion of Ukrainian scientific innovations (taking medical innovations as an example).

Methods. A theoretical framework for the research is diffusion of innovations theory. The potential contribution digital media can make to diffusion is studied through textual representations of 5 diffusion factors defined by E. Rogers: observability, relative advantage, compatibility, complexity or simplicity, and trialability. These are intrinsic characteristics of innovation though mass media can expose information about them to publics. Content analysis was used for counting the frequency of coverage of different innovations and the frequency of different kinds of 5 factors’ explication. Results. Among medical innovations, Ukrainian digital media cover cancer remedies most frequently (61 % of the sample). Innovative wound closure materials are presented in 1% of publications, surgery technologies – 0,09 %, diabetes treatment – 0,05 %, innovations in cardiology – 0,04 %. Among five diffusion factors observability was the most accomplished one. Informative visual illustrations (photos, videos, infographics) appeared in 65 % of publications. The rest of publications contained either non-informative visuals (21 %) or no visuals at all (13 %). Relative advantage was also quite covered: 42 % of publications have explicit and clear statements about relative advantage, 26 % have unclear statement, and 32% do not define relative advantage. Compatibility in health care is linked with indications and contraindications. In large scale, Ukrainian media agenda inadequately represents Ukrainian problems in health care. Though, the highest level of disease mortality is of blood system diseases, only 0,04 % of media publications covers innovations in cardiology. As for complexity / simplicity, clear and accurate explanations were common for original publications with clear authorship (30 %). On the contrary, plagiarized anonymous publications typically contained lots of distortions of primary sources’ information. Trialability was the less accomplished factor. None of publications contained information for those who want to try an innovation except (but not always) the names of institutions where innovation was created. Conclusions. A potential contribution Ukrainian digital media can make to diffusion of medical innovations is generally low. The reasons are plagiarism and pure quality of texts. The majority of reporting about innovations is represented by anonymous rewritten texts with numerous distortions and mistakes.