Presenting efficacy information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements

Patient Education and Counseling

Volumn 95, Issue 2, 2014, Pages 271-280

  O'Donoghue, Amie C ^a   Sullivan, Helen W ^a   Aikin, Kathryn J ^a   Chowdhury, Dhuly ^b   Moultrie, Rebecca R ^b   Rupert, Douglas J ^b  

^a CENTER FOR DRUG EVALUATION AND RESEARCH   (United States)

^b RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Communication; DTC advertising; Quantitative information

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ADULT; ADVERTIZING; AGED; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE TO HEALTH; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; CONTROLLED STUDY; DECISION MAKING; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG INFORMATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PERCEPTION; PRESCRIPTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RECALL; TELEVISION; YOUNG ADULT; ADOLESCENT; CONSUMER ATTITUDE; PATIENT EDUCATION; PROCEDURES; PUBLICATION; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; UNITED STATES;

HYPOCHOLESTEROLEMIC AGENT; PRESCRIPTION DRUG;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; ADVERTISING AS TOPIC; AGED; ANTICHOLESTEREMIC AGENTS; CONSUMER BEHAVIOR; CONSUMER HEALTH INFORMATION; FEMALE; HUMANS; HYPERCHOLESTEROLEMIA; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PAMPHLETS; PATIENT EDUCATION AS TOPIC; PRESCRIPTION DRUGS; TELEVISION; UNITED STATES; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84897110922     PISSN: 07383991     EISSN: 18735134     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.010     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Government Accountability Office Improvements needed in FDA's oversight of direct-to-consumer advertising. GAO-07-54 2006, Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC.
2. Aikin K.J., Swasy J.L., Braman A.C. Patient and physician attitudes and behaviors associated with DTC promotion of prescription drugs 2004, Food and Drug Administration, Washington, DC, [accessed 21.08.13]. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ScienceResearch/ResearchAreas/DrugMarketingAdvertisingandCommunicationsResearch/ucm151498.htm.
3. Gilbody S., Wilson P., Watt I. Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2005, 14:246-250.
4. Kaiser Family Foundation Understanding the effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising 2001, Kaiser Family Foundation, Menlo Park, CA.
5. Mintzes B., Barer M.L., Kravitz R.L., Kazanjian A., Bassett K., Lexchin J., et al. Influence of direct to consumer pharmaceutical advertising and patients' requests on prescribing decisions: two site cross sectional survey. Brit Med J 2002, 324:278-279.
6. Murray E., Lo B., Pollack L., Donelan K., Lee K. Direct-to-consumer advertising: public perceptions of its effects on health behaviors, health care, and the doctor-patient relationship. J Am Board Fam Pract 2004, 17:6-18.
7. Zachry W.M., Shepherd M.D., Hinich M.J., Wilson J.P., Brown C.M., Lawson K.A. Relationship between direct-to-consumer advertising and physician diagnosing and prescribing. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2002, 59:42-44.
8. Lipsky M.S., Taylor C.A. The opinions and experiences of family physicians regarding direct-to-consumer advertising. J Fam Pract 1997, 45:495-499.
9. Murray E., Lo B., Pollack L., Donelan K., Lee K. Direct-to-consumer advertising: physicians' views of its effects on quality of care and the doctor-patient relationship. J Am Board Fam Pract 2003, 16:513-524.
10. Greene J.A., Herzberg D. Hidden in plain sight: marketing prescription drugs to consumers in the twentieth century. Am J Public Health 2010, 100:793-803.
11. Bowman M.L. The perfidy of percentiles. Arch Clin Neuropsychol 2002, 17:295-303.
12. Cohen D.J., Ferrell J.M., Johnson N. What very small numbers mean. J Exp Psychol Gen 2002, 131:424-442.
13. Frosch D.L., Krueger P.M., Hornik R.C., Cronholm P.F., Barg F.K. Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising. Ann Fam Med 2007, 5:6-13.
14. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Pub. L. No. 111-148, §2702, 124 Stat. 119 2010, 318-319.
15. Allen M., Preiss R.W. Comparing the persuasiveness of narrative and statistical evidence using meta-analysis. Comm Res Rep 2009, 14:125-131.
16. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Welch H.G. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:655-692.
17. Schwartz L.M., Woloshin S., Welch H.G. Communicating drug benefits and harms with a drug facts box: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2009, 150:516-527.
18. Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med 2011, 155:87-96.
19. Woloshin S., Schwartz L.M., Welch H.G. The value of benefit data in direct-to-consumer dug ads. Health Aff 2004, W4(Suppl.):234-245.
20. Lipkus I. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making 2007, 27:697-713.
21. Fagerlin A., Ubel P.A., Smith D.M., Zikmund-Fisher B.J. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav 2007, 31(Suppl. 1):S47-S56.
22. Knapp P., Gardner P.H., Carrigan N., Raynor D.K., Woolf E. Perceived risk of medicine side effects in users of a patient information website: a study of the use of verbal descriptors, percentages, and natural frequencies. Br J Health Psychol 2009, 14:579-594.
23. Beyth-Marom R. How probable is probable? A numerical translation of verbal probability expressions. J Forecast 1982, 1:257-269.
24. IMS Health, Integrated Promotional Services™, year 2010, Date Extracted May 2011.
25. Berry D.C., Knapp P., Raynor D.K. Provision of information about drug side-effects to patients. Lancet 2002, 359:853-854.
26. Sullivan H.W., O'Donoghue A.C., Aikin K.J., Chowdhury D., Moultrie R.R., Rupert D.J. Visual presentations of efficacy data in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements: a randomized study 2013, [submitted for publication].
27. Chang L., Krosnick J.A. National surveys via RDD telephone interviews versus the Internet: comparing sample representativeness and response quality. Public Opin Q 2009, 73:641-678.
28. Dennis M. KnowledgePanel: processes and procedures contributing to sample representativeness and tests for self-selection bias 2010, [accessed 21.08.13]. http://www.knowledgenetworks.com/ganp/docs/KnowledgePanelR-Statistical-Methods-Note.pdf.
29. U.S. Food and Drug Administration Guidance for industry: consumer directed broadcast advertisements 1999, US Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm125064.pdf [accessed 16.10.13].
30. Schwartz L., Woloshin S., Black W., Welch H.G. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med 1997, 127:966-972.
31. Slovic P., Monahan J., MacGregor D.G. Violence risk assessment and risk communication: the effects of using actual cases, providing instruction, and employing probability versus frequency formats. Law Hum Behav 2000, 24:271-296.
32. Sweller J. Cognitive load during problem solving: effects on learning. Cogn Sci 1988, 12:257-285.
33. Thompson R.F. In search of memory traces. Annu Rev Psychol 2005, 56:1-23.
34. Reyna V.F. How people make decisions that involve risk: a dual-process approach. Curr Dir Psy Sci 2004, 13:60-66.
35. Zillman D., Callison C., Gibson R. Quantitative media literacy: individual differences in dealing with numbers in the news. Media Psychol 2009, 12:394-416.
36. Gibson R., Callison C., Zillman D. Quantitative literacy and affective reactivity in processing statistical information and case histories in the news. Media Psychol 2011, 14:96-120.
37. Heerwegh D., Loosveldt G. Face-to-face versus web surveying in a high-Internet-coverage population: differences in response quality. Public Opin Q 2008, 72:836-846.
38. Klovning A., Sandvik H., Hunskaar S. Web-based survey attracted age-biased sample with more severe illness than paper-based survey. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:1068-1074.