Literature DB >> 25194471

Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall.

Amie C O'Donoghue1, Pamela A Williams2, Helen W Sullivan3, Vanessa Boudewyns2, Claudia Squire2, Jessica Fitts Willoughby2.   

Abstract

Although pharmaceutical companies cannot make comparative claims in direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for prescription drugs without substantial evidence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits some comparisons based on labeled attributes of the drug, such as dosing. Researchers have examined comparative advertising for packaged goods; however, scant research has examined comparative DTC advertising. We conducted two studies to determine if comparative claims in DTC ads influence consumers' perceptions and recall of drug information. In Experiment 1, participants with osteoarthritis (n=1934) viewed a fictitious print or video DTC ad that had no comparative claim or made an efficacy comparison to a named or unnamed competitor. Participants who viewed print (but not video) ads with named competitors had greater efficacy and lower risk perceptions than participants who viewed unnamed competitor and noncomparative ads. In Experiment 2, participants with high cholesterol or high body mass index (n=5317) viewed a fictitious print or video DTC ad that had no comparative claim or made a comparison to a named or unnamed competitor. We varied the type of comparison (of indication, dosing, or mechanism of action) and whether the comparison was accompanied by a visual depiction. Participants who viewed print and video ads with named competitors had greater efficacy perceptions than participants who viewed unnamed competitor and noncomparative ads. Unlike Experiment 1, named competitors in print ads resulted in higher risk perceptions than unnamed competitors. In video ads, participants who saw an indication comparison had greater benefit recall than participants who saw dosing or mechanism of action comparisons. In addition, visual depictions of the comparison decreased risk recall for video ads. Overall, the results suggest that comparative claims in DTC ads could mislead consumers about a drug's efficacy and risk; therefore, caution should be used when presenting comparative claims in DTC ads. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Communication; Comparative advertising; Direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements; Marketing; Perceived risk; Prescription drugs; United States

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25194471      PMCID: PMC7342488          DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.039

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  9 in total

1.  The perfidy of percentiles.

Authors:  Marilyn L Bowman
Journal:  Arch Clin Neuropsychol       Date:  2002-04       Impact factor: 2.813

2.  Capacity limits of information processing in the brain.

Authors:  René Marois; Jason Ivanoff
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Are direct to consumer advertisments of prescription drugs educational?: comparing 1992 to 2002.

Authors:  Timothy Jon Curry; Jeff Jarosch; Shelley Pacholok
Journal:  J Drug Educ       Date:  2005

4.  Consumers' preferences for the communication of risk information in drug advertising.

Authors:  Joel J Davis
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2007 May-Jun       Impact factor: 6.301

5.  The Food and Drug Administration has the legal basis to restrict promotion of flawed comparative effectiveness research.

Authors:  Aaron S Kesselheim; Jerry Avorn
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Regulatory requirements of the Food and Drug Administration would preclude product claims based on observational research.

Authors:  Joseph P Griffin; Bryant M Godfrey; Rachel E Sherman
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 6.301

7.  Treatment preferences and medication adherence of people with Type 2 diabetes using oral glucose-lowering agents.

Authors:  A B Hauber; A F Mohamed; F R Johnson; H Falvey
Journal:  Diabet Med       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 4.359

8.  Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials.

Authors:  Lisa M Schwartz; Steven Woloshin; H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-02-16       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  What very small numbers mean.

Authors:  Dale J Cohen; Jennifer M Ferrell; Nathan Johnson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2002-09
  9 in total
  3 in total

1.  Communicating efficacy information based on composite scores in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising.

Authors:  Pamela A Williams; Amie C O'Donoghue; Helen W Sullivan; Jessica Fitts Willoughby; Claudia Squire; Sarah Parvanta; Kevin R Betts
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2015-11-05

2.  Effects of additional context information in prescription drug information sheets on comprehension and risk and efficacy perceptions.

Authors:  Bridget Kelly; Amie O'Donoghue; Sarah Parvanta; Vanessa Boudewyns; Oluwamurewa Oguntimein; Carla Bann; Sue West; Janice Tzeng; Caroline Chandler; Gabriel Madson; Lauren McCormack
Journal:  J Pharm Policy Pract       Date:  2022-03-01

3.  Higher patient satisfaction with antidepressants correlates with earlier drug release dates across online user-generated medical databases.

Authors:  Scott Siskind; Roland C Aydin; Punit Matta; Christian J Cyron
Journal:  Pharmacol Res Perspect       Date:  2017-10
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.