Literature DB >> 15596630

Advertising, patient decision making, and self-referral for computed tomographic and magnetic resonance imaging.

Judy Illes1, Dylan Kann, Kim Karetsky, Phillip Letourneau, Thomas A Raffin, Pamela Schraedley-Desmond, Barbara A Koenig, Scott W Atlas.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Self-referred imaging is one of the latest health care services to be marketed directly to consumers. Most aspects of these services are unregulated, and little is known about the messages in advertising used to attract potential consumers. We conducted a detailed analysis of print advertisements and informational brochures for self-referred imaging with respect to themes, content, accuracy, and emotional valence.
METHODS: Forty print advertisements from US newspapers around the country and 20 informational brochures were analyzed by 2 independent raters according to 7 major themes: health care technology; emotion, empowerment, and assurance; incentives; limited supporting evidence; popular appeal; statistics; and images. The Fisher exact test was used to identify significant differences in information content.
RESULTS: Both the advertisements and the brochures emphasized health care and technology information and provided assurances of good health and incentives to self-refer. These materials also encouraged consumers to seek further information from company resources; virtually none referred to noncomplying sources of information or to the risks of having a scan. Images of people commonly portrayed European Americans. We found statistical differences between newspaper advertisements and mailed brochures for references to "prevalence of disease" (P<.001), "death" (P<.003), and "radiation" (P<.001). Statements lacking clear scientific evidence were identified in 38% of the advertisements (n = 15) and 25% of the brochures (n = 5).
CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-consumer marketing of self-referred imaging services, in both print advertisements and informational brochures, fails to provide prospective consumers with comprehensive balanced information vital to informed autonomous decision making. Professional guidelines and oversight for advertising and promotion of these services are needed.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15596630     DOI: 10.1001/archinte.164.22.2415

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Arch Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-9926


  18 in total

Review 1.  Neuroethics: a modern context for ethics in neuroscience.

Authors:  Judy Illes; Stephanie J Bird
Journal:  Trends Neurosci       Date:  2006-07-21       Impact factor: 13.837

2.  Update on Direct-to-Consumer Marketing in Oncology.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Gregory A Abel
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-02-21       Impact factor: 3.840

3.  Dementia specialists and early adoption of amyloid imaging.

Authors:  Eran P Klein; Jeffrey Kaye
Journal:  J Alzheimers Dis       Date:  2013       Impact factor: 4.472

4.  Hospital Advertising, Competition, and HCAHPS: Does It Pay to Advertise?

Authors:  John W Huppertz; R Alan Bowman; George Y Bizer; Mandeep S Sidhu; Colleen McVeigh
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2016-08-22       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Presenters or Patients? A Crucial Distinction in Individual Health Assessments.

Authors:  G Owen Schaefer
Journal:  Asian Bioeth Rev       Date:  2018-03-09

6.  Marketing of personalized cancer care on the web: an analysis of Internet websites.

Authors:  Stacy W Gray; Angel Cronin; Elizabeth Bair; Neal Lindeman; Vish Viswanath; Katherine A Janeway
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2015-03-05       Impact factor: 13.506

7.  What are cancer centers advertising to the public?: a content analysis.

Authors:  Laura B Vater; Julie M Donohue; Robert Arnold; Douglas B White; Edward Chu; Yael Schenker
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-06-17       Impact factor: 25.391

8.  Associations between cancer-related information seeking and receiving PET imaging for routine cancer surveillance--an analysis of longitudinal survey data.

Authors:  Andy S L Tan; Laura Gibson; Hanna M Zafar; Stacy W Gray; Robert C Hornik; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-02-18       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Nip, tuck and click: medical tourism and the emergence of web-based health information.

Authors:  Neil Lunt; Mariann Hardey; Russell Mannion
Journal:  Open Med Inform J       Date:  2010-02-12

Review 10.  Incidental findings on brain magnetic resonance imaging: systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Zoe Morris; William N Whiteley; W T Longstreth; Frank Weber; Yi-Chung Lee; Yoshito Tsushima; Hannah Alphs; Susanne C Ladd; Charles Warlow; Joanna M Wardlaw; Rustam Al-Shahi Salman
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2009-08-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.