Newspapers that get involved in screening campaigns usually demonstrate that they don’t understand the limitations of screening.
The latest example is The Sun of the UK, with its “Check ’em Tuesday” campaign.
The Sun has a thing for breasts. It puts topless women in its regular Page 3 feature. And, as you see, it cross-promotes Page 3 toplessness and “Check ’em Tuesday.”
The Sun goes on to urge women to:
“Check ’em and share pics.”
ONCE you’ve checked ’em, post ’em.
Put your snaps on Facebook or on Twitter and Instagram using the hashtag #checkemtuesday
In the BMJ, Dr. Margaret McCartney wrote: “Why the Sun’s breast check campaign may actually harm women.” Excerpt:
Teaching women to examine their breasts regularly has been shown not to reduce deaths from breast cancer and actually increases the chances of a benign biopsy result. It is unfair to tell women that regular self examination will save their lives when it may simply incur anxiety and have the potential to harm. Sound bites, beyond the safety of scientific qualification, can denature evidence.
This is just one aspect of a bigger move to promote untested “breast awareness.” The charity Breakthrough Breast Cancer, which is not connected to the Sun‘s campaign, tells women to “touch, look, feel” regularly and advocates “knowing what your breasts look and feel like normally” as well as being able to name “the 5 signs of breast cancer.” NHS Choices suggests that women should examine their breasts at different times of the month in the shower or bath and lists nine changes to “look out for” and to “look and feel.” The charity CoppaFeel, which is involved with the Sun‘s campaign, offers text message reminders to prompt women to do a regular self examination.
The reason for so much confusion is the lack of acknowledgment of the current uncertainty. Yet it would be possible to run a randomised trial to see whether promoting “breast awareness” has benefits and what it should consist of.
Publicity campaigns that claim to be “against cancer” seem to get past much critical challenge, to our collective disadvantage. Public health messages should be based on evidence. Their effects need to be proved to affect behaviour in a way that is helpful and not harmful. When medicine mixes with public relations and media campaigns, citizens and patients risk being short changed because their interests are vastly different.
If we fail to critically evaluate campaigns on cancer, we create the appearance of doing something useful while potentially distracting from what might really help. In doing so we potentially harm the very women we’re purporting to help. The Sun‘s primary interest is in selling papers; so what are the charities’ and the NHS’s excuses?
The Sun responded to Dr. McCartney’s BMJ column, with a non-evidence-based rebuttal claiming that its campaign will, indeed, save lives. The campaign clearly demonstrates a mastery of promotion and marketing. It’s too bad such efforts and energy aren’t redirected to disseminating evidence-based health care information to the public.
——————–
Tweet
Follow us on Twitter:
https://twitter.com/garyschwitzer
https://twitter.com/healthnewsrevu
Comments (4)
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
Bix
April 6, 2014 at 6:54 amGreat post, as usual.
You would think that if self-exam was beneficial for women, it would be beneficial for men also. Testicular cancer is the most common cancer in men 15 to 40 years old. And almost all men, by the time they reach the age of 80 will have prostate cancer.
The sharing pics part gains new perspective.
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