What's more worrying, the public believing in a manufactured illness or their not trusting genuine health research?
We may have dismissed men as being overly dramatic when they claimed a cold as flu but last week a press release from Nuts magazine revealed that “man flu” does exist. The magazine, Britain's biggest men's weekly title, made the claim after conducting an online survey of its readers.
The poll of 2131 readers showed that 64% of men suffer from a viral illness compared with just 45% of women. Men take on average three days to recover and women take on average only a day and a half. Men spend £18.34 on cold and flu remedies—women spend £12.03. The press release went on to claim that man flu is, “a serious affliction which affects over two thirds of the British male population. Men are more susceptible [and] are affected more severely, with a much slower recovery rate.”
Sadly the wider media reported “man flu” as a genuine health story: “Man flu is not to be sniffed at,” said the Daily Record; “‘Man flu' no longer a myth,” according to the Independent Online; and “Man flu really exists,” said The Mirror.
Press coverage quoted the magazine's health correspondent: “We at Nuts always knew that “man flu” was a very real, potentially catastrophic sickness, and are pleased to bring the skepticism (sic) that surrounds this vicious malaise to a close.”
The press release continued: “Let the word be spread that our womenfolk must go that extra mile to care for us when we are stricken with it, so that future shelves can be erected, cars can be maintained and football stadia throughout the land can be well attended.” This places the story in a different context, but the media omitted this quote.
Numerous magazines are no doubt preparing warnings about “man flu.” Other public relations companies will likely use “man flu” to get press coverage. Nuts magazine has done very well. And all because we do not take promotional surveys seriously.
“Man flu” blurs the boundaries between health and market research, but with no protection of research participants, no quality control of the survey, and misdirecting the public with “results.” It is time our research ethics committees paid closer attention to publicity surveys using “health” topics which are supposedly governed by codes of conduct http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/codeconduct.htmn.
When asked, Nuts magazine would not reveal the questions asked in their research, although they did say it was presented to readers as “the man flu survey,” influencing their answers from the outset. The study was obviously not representative because it was completed online with a subsection of Nuts readers. This means it's biased in favour of male respondents who are by far their biggest market.
We should challenge these dubious promotional surveys. You can complain about the Nuts survey via the Market Research Society http://www.mrs.org.uk/standards/complain.htm. If you have “man flu” you may, of course, need someone to complain on your behalf.