On a BMJ blog, Dr. Margaret McCartney writes about her irritation after seeing ads on the side of buses in Glasgow (where she lives) promoting screening tests but not divulging that this was to recruit people into clinical trials. She and her daughter took photos of the ads, and she shared those with me:
She complained to the UK agency that regulates advertising across all media. And that agency ruled that the ads were misleading and must not appear again in their current form. The agency gave this description of the ads:
Three posters on buses in Glasgow promoted a company recruiting for, and running, clinical trials:
a. A bus poster, which displayed an image of an X-rayed hand with fingers crossed, was headlined “1 in 2 women over 50 will break a bone due to Osteoporosis”. Text stated “To find out about our FREE Bone Density scanning programme visit www.improvinghealth.com, call 0800 XXX XXXX or text ‘scan’ to 80XXX. Your local Synexus Centre is located in Glasgow. help us to help you. SYNEXUS”.
b. A second bus poster, which displayed an image of a female using an inhaler, was headlined “Do you have asthma?”. Text stated “Register for a complimentary health check today and you could be part of our research into the future of asthma. Text asthma to 88XXX, call 0141 XXX XXXX or visit www.challenge-asthma.com. SYNEXUS. Help us to help you”.
c. A third bus poster, which displayed an image of an older woman, was headlined “Concerned about diabetes?”. Text stated “To find out about our free health screening programme, visit www.challenge-heartdisease.com, call 0800 XXX XXXX or text ‘heart’ to 81XXX. Your local Synexus Centre is located in Glasgow. We’re getting to the heart of the matter. SYNEXUS”.
McCartney writes: “I wonder if advertising health tests direct to the public is ever going to be good for us.”
Certainly not if only the potential benefits are emphasized, and the potential harms are ignored.
This is not merely an advertising ethics issue; it’s a health care and medical research ethics issue as well.
—————————
Follow us on Facebook, and on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Opinions on other issues in news, journals, PR, advertising, marketing
Monday at #ADA2021, an infectious disease epidemiologist, a journalist, and a researcher shared perspectives on communication of risk in the era of COVID-19: http://ow.ly/ROfR30rMeE7 @AstleyCM @garyschwitzer @berthahidalgo @ADA_DiabetesPro
Shoutouts to @susan_bewley @drkevinknopf @MichaelBaum11 in this call for more than fawning coverage from press releases for these kinds of stories.
Also, linked history inside goes back 5 years just on Grail apparently trying to become Holy Grail. https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer/status/1408849696416841731
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Comments are closed.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like