New Zealand deserves better. Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription medicines in New Zealand: For health or for profit?

New Zealand Medical Journal

Volumn 116, Issue 1180, 2003, Pages

  Toop, Les ^a   Richards, Dee ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OTAGO   (New Zealand)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CYCLOOXYGENASE 2 INHIBITOR; NEW DRUG; DRUG;

DRUG CHOICE; DRUG COST; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG INFORMATION; DRUG LEGISLATION; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG PREFERENCE; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG UTILIZATION; EDITORIAL; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE ORGANIZATION; HUMAN; MEDICAL DECISION MAKING; NEW ZEALAND; PHYSICIAN ATTITUDE; PRESCRIPTION; PROFIT; PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE; RESOURCE ALLOCATION; ADVERTIZING; ECONOMICS; LEGAL ASPECT;

ADVERTISING; DRUG INDUSTRY; LEGISLATION, DRUG; NEW ZEALAND; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; PRESCRIPTIONS, DRUG;

EID: 0642368372     PISSN: 11758716     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Editorial

References (19)

1. United States General Accounting Office. Prescription drugs. FDA oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising has limitations. Washington DC: USGAO; 2002. p. 1-33.
2. Evans PD. Preliminary inquiry into the Advertising Authority Complaint - Professors Dowell, Tilyard and Toop. Dunedin: University of Otago; 2003. Available online. URL: http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/report2.htm Accessed August 2003.
3. Colmar Brunton Social Research Agency. Consumer opinion: prescription medicines. Christchurch: University of Otago; 2003. Available online. URL: www.chmeds.ac.nz/report3.htm Accessed August 2003.
4. Hoek J, Gendall P. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription medicines: a consumer survey. Wellington: Massey University; 2003.
5. Mintzes B. An assessment of the health system impacts of direct to consumer advertising of prescriptions medicine (DTCA). Volume III: Patient information on medicines: a comparative patient/doctor survey in Vancouver and Sacramento. Vancouver: Centre for Health Services and Policy Research, University of British Columbia; 2001.
6. Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, et al. Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. BMJ 2002;324:278-9.
7. Toop L, Richards D, Dowell T, et al. Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs in New Zealand: for health or for profit? Report to the Minister of Health supporting the case for a ban on DTCA. Dunedin: University of Otago, 2003. Available online. URL: http://www.chmeds.ac.nz/report.pdf Accessed February 2003.
8. Moynihan R, Heath I, Henry D. Selling sickness: the pharmaceutical industry and disease mongering. BMJ 2002;324:886-91.
9. Wolf N. Positioning DETROL (Creating a disease). Powerpoint presentation to Pharmaceutical Marketing Research Group, 7 October 2002. Available online. URL: http://www.pmrg.org/presentations.html Accessed. 2003.
10. Bell RA, Wilkes MS, Kravitz RL. The educational value of consumer-targeted prescription drug print advertising. J Fam Pract 2000;49:1092-8.
11. Bell RA, Kravitz RL, Wilkes MS. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising, 1989-1998. A content analysis of conditions, targets, inducements, and appeals. J Fam Pract 2000;49:329-35.
12. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Tremmel J, Welch HG. Direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: what are Americans being sold? Lancet 2001;358:1141-6.
13. Aikin KJ. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs: physician Survey preliminary results. Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising and Communications Food and Drug Administration; 2002. Available online. URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/ddmac/globalsummit2003/sld001.htm Accessed August 2003.
14. NIHCM Foundation. Changing patterns of pharmaceutical innovation. Washington DC: NIHCM Foundation; 2002. p. 1-24. Available online. URL: http://www.nihcm.org/innovations.pdf Accessed August 2003.
15. Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Annual report 2000: compliance and excessive price guidelines. Ottawa: Patented Medicine Prices Review Board; 2000. p. 26-31.
16. A look back at 2000: overabundance and deregulation. Prescrire Int 2001;10:52-4.
17. Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A, et al. Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR study group. N Engl J Med 2000;343:1520-8.
18. Juni P, Rutjes AW, Dieppe PA. Are selective COX 2 inhibitors superior to traditional non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs?. BMJ 2002;324:1287-8.
19. Pratt P. The results of a regulatory compliance survey of direct-to-consumer advertisements for medicines. Wellington: Ministry of Health (Medsafe); 2000. p. 3.