Gregory A Abel1, Stephanie J Lee, Jane C Weeks. 1. Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA 02115, USA.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Content analysis of cancer-related direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), with a focus on how benefit and risk/adverse effect information is presented, is essential to understanding its potential impact on oncology outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed all oncology DTCA appearing in three patient-focused cancer magazines and a sample of selected popular magazines from January 2003 to June 2006. We determined the Flesch reading ease score (FRES) for the text in each advertisement (a score > or = 65 is readable for the average person). We also assessed the proportion, type size, and placement of benefits and risks/adverse effects, as well as the nature and content of advertising appeals. RESULTS: Of 284 advertisements identified, 49 were unique. Oncology-related DTCA was rare in the popular magazines, and appeared mostly in those aimed at female readership. About equal amounts of text were devoted to benefits and risks/adverse effects, and all text was difficult to read. The mean FRES for benefit text was 39.71; for risk/adverse effect text, it was 38.22, a difference of 1.49 (95% CI, -4.02 to 7.00). The largest font size for benefits was 4.60 mm on average; for risks/adverse effects, it was 2.38 mm, a difference of 2.22 mm (95% CI, 1.35 to 3.09). Appeals to medication effectiveness were frequent (95%) and often made with clinical trial data (61%). CONCLUSION: Oncology print DTCA is prevalent in cancer-related, patient-directed magazines, and infrequent in the popular press. The information presented is considerably difficult to read, raising important questions about the appropriateness of direct-to-consumer marketing for oncologic medications.
PURPOSE: Content analysis of cancer-related direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA), with a focus on how benefit and risk/adverse effect information is presented, is essential to understanding its potential impact on oncology outcomes. METHODS: We reviewed all oncology DTCA appearing in three patient-focused cancer magazines and a sample of selected popular magazines from January 2003 to June 2006. We determined the Flesch reading ease score (FRES) for the text in each advertisement (a score > or = 65 is readable for the average person). We also assessed the proportion, type size, and placement of benefits and risks/adverse effects, as well as the nature and content of advertising appeals. RESULTS: Of 284 advertisements identified, 49 were unique. Oncology-related DTCA was rare in the popular magazines, and appeared mostly in those aimed at female readership. About equal amounts of text were devoted to benefits and risks/adverse effects, and all text was difficult to read. The mean FRES for benefit text was 39.71; for risk/adverse effect text, it was 38.22, a difference of 1.49 (95% CI, -4.02 to 7.00). The largest font size for benefits was 4.60 mm on average; for risks/adverse effects, it was 2.38 mm, a difference of 2.22 mm (95% CI, 1.35 to 3.09). Appeals to medication effectiveness were frequent (95%) and often made with clinical trial data (61%). CONCLUSION: Oncology print DTCA is prevalent in cancer-related, patient-directed magazines, and infrequent in the popular press. The information presented is considerably difficult to read, raising important questions about the appropriateness of direct-to-consumer marketing for oncologic medications.
Authors: Richard L Kravitz; Ronald M Epstein; Robert A Bell; Aaron B Rochlen; Paul Duberstein; Caroline H Riby; Anthony F Caccamo; Christina K Slee; Camille S Cipri; Debora A Paterniti Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2011-08-21
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