ASA Adjudication on The Association For The Promotion Of Pre-Conceptual Care

Ad

A magazine ad claimed "Pregnancy Facts In the UK today - 1 in 6 couples are infertile. 1 pregnancy in 4 miscarries. 1 baby in 17 is malformed. 1 baby in 4 has learning difficulties. Infertile couples have a 78.4% rate of healthy baby success with Foresight - compared with IVF success rate of 22.6% Foresight and IVF method together has 47.1% success rate Miscarriage rate - Foresight 3.5% - compared with 25% NHS Malformations rate - Foresight 0.47% - compared with 6% NHS Premature babies rate - Foresight 2% in multiple births - compared with 13% NHS Foresight figures quoted are informal (but accurate) count-up of couples and babies born … “.

Issue

The complainant challenged:

1. the claims made for Foresights success compared with the NHS and

2. whether the UK pregnancy and baby statistics quoted in the ad could be substantiated.

CAP Code (Edition 11)

Response

Foresight explained that they had taken the figures in the ad from various sources but had discovered that, since then, categories and definitions had changed. They provided print-outs of web pages from the Office for National Statistics (ONS), Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and BLISS, the premature baby charity, that they believed supported their claims for the prevalence of infertility and miscarriage. They noted the figures for couples having difficulties conceiving and babies born with malformations had changed and said they would amend their ad accordingly. They provided information on 1,067 couples, who had sought the assistance of the Foresight programme between 1995 and 1997, as substantiation for their success claims. They also provided a 1993 study, designed by the University of Surrey, to evaluate the effectiveness of pre-conceptual care. Foresight pointed out that the national average rate of miscarriage was 25%, according to the ONS, and explained that they had had 779 babies born to 729 couples but a further 28 couples had miscarried. They also pointed out that the figures referring to the NHS were national and therefore included the NHS, because they were sourced from the ONS and HFEA.

Assessment

1. Upheld

The ASA noted Foresight was a registered charity whose aim was for every birth to be healthy. We noted the figures stated in the ad for the prevalence of healthy babies, miscarriage, malformation and premature babies in multiple births from Foresight. We also noted the most recent information from HFEA showed the IVF-only success rate had dropped to 20%, averaged across all age ranges. We acknowledged that Foresight planned to amend the figures for malformations but noted the miscarriage and premature birth rate comparison figures they provided were taken from the ONS and HFEA, not the NHS alone as implied by the ad. We were concerned that the ad did not state the source of the comparative figures and any extra information required for readers to make sense of the comparison, although we noted it did state that the Foresight figures were informal. We acknowledged that Foresight held data about the number of pregnancies and their outcomes for people enrolled in their programme, but considered that the direct comparison with IVF and the NHS was not fair because it used generalised statistical information not matched for age or medical history. We concluded that the claim misleadingly implied that the Foresight programme was more successful than IVF or other NHS interventions for couples having difficulty conceiving. We concluded that, because the comparison figures were not accurate, unreferenced and did not come from the NHS, the claims were misleading.

2. Upheld

We considered that, in the context of the ad, the word "infertile" was ambiguous and could be understood to mean that a couple were unable to conceive naturally. We noted one in seven couples were believed by HFEA to have difficulties conceiving, not one in six, and considered that the ad did not make clear enough that the claim "1 in 6 couples are infertile" was a reference to couples having difficulty conceiving. We acknowledged that Foresight planned to change that figure and the figures on malformation, because they were now incorrect. We noted the information Foresight had provided to substantiate the statistics quoted in the ad was the latest they had found and noted at least two of the four statistics in the ad were out of date; we also noted none of them were referenced. We concluded that Foresight had not justified the claims.

On points 1 and 2, the ad breached CAP Code 3.1 (Substantiation), 3.2 (Division of informed opinion), 7.1 (Truthfulness), 18.1 (Comparison) and 50.1 (Scientific substantiation).

Action

We told Foresight not to repeat the ad and to seek help from the CAP Copy Advice team before advertising again.

Adjudication of the ASA Council (Non-broadcast)