Abstract
Although misleading health information is not a new phenomenon, no standards exist to assess consumers’ ability to detect and subsequently reject misinformation. Part of this deficit ...reflects theoretical and measurement challenges. After drawing novel connections among legal, regulatory, and philosophical perspectives on false, misleading or deceptive advertising and cognitive-process models of persuasive communication, we define deception and misinformation rejection. Recognizing that individuals can hold beliefs that align with a persuasive message without those beliefs having been influenced by it, we derive empirical criteria to test for evidence of these constructs that center on yielding or not yielding to misinformation in mediated contexts. We present data from an experimental study to illustrate the proposed test procedure and provide evidence for two theoretically derived patterns indicative of misinformation rejection. The resulting definitions and empirical procedure set the stage for additional theorizing and empirical studies on misinformation in the marketplace.
We conducted two experiments that tested for conflation of fictitious disease awareness and prescription drug promotional communications in a television advertising context and whether similarity, ...proximity, and number of exposures to the disease awareness communication contributed to this conflation. Study 1 involved a 1-h television segment, and Study 2 used a longitudinal design with participants exposed to communications over time. The promoted product was indicated to treat asthma. Participants (Study 1,
= 2190; Study 2,
= 1621) were adults who had experienced asthma or asthma symptoms. In Study 1, mere exposure to disease awareness communication prompted benefit and risk conflation, but the degree of similarity or proximity did not have an effect. In Study 2, similar ads prompted greater conflation of benefits than distinct ads, and greater conflation of risks occurred with greater proximity to disease awareness and promotional communications. In addition, asthma knowledge, health literacy, and perceived ad effectiveness increased conflation of benefits in both studies but tended not to modify the impact of similarity or proximity. The findings demonstrate the potential for disease awareness communications to confuse consumers regarding the benefits and risks of a drug.
Pharmaceutical spending on prescription drug promotion is considerable, and exposure to advertising can influence demand and behavior. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides industry ...guidance to help ensure that communications to consumers and health care providers about prescription drug promotion are truthful, balanced, and accurately communicated. As empirical research has accelerated on this topic in the past decade, an understanding of the current landscape of the science will help inform future research.
Using systematic methods, this rigorous scoping review of the literature over the past decade (2012–2021) (1) examined the extent to which prescription drug promotion has been empirically investigated with consumers, patients, and health care providers; (2) examined the extent to which content and features of prescription drug promotion have been empirically investigated; and (3) identified themes across the literature to better understand the current landscape of prescription drug promotion.
Databases searched include PubMed, Web of Science, CINAHL, APA PsycInfo, Business Source Corporate, Communication Source, Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov for original research published in English from January 1, 2012, through November 10, 2021, using terms related to direct-to-consumer advertising, prescription drugs, and outcomes of interest (e.g., attitudes, perceptions, intentions, behaviors).
Of 804 screened references, 151 studies addressed the first research question, and 40 studies addressed the second. The most common theme across the body of evidence focused on testing of features and content in prescription drug promotional materials (84), followed by studies examining attitudes, perceptions, and behaviors toward prescription drug promotion more generally (43). Some (27) studies focused on targeted populations, such as patients, the elderly, non-English speaking people or individuals of a non-white race/ethnicity. Twenty-four studies assessed influence of exposure to prescription drug promotion on actual clinical outcomes, while 11 studies examined emerging technologies around prescription drug promotion. Seven studies evaluated the extent to which prescription drug promotion complied with existing guidelines and requirements.
Findings from this scoping review suggest there has been an increase in the number of empirical studies conducted on prescription drug promotion over the past decade. Potential areas that warrant further study include examination of emerging technologies, an expanded focus on targeted populations, and construct measurement.
•189 articles published between 2012 and 2021 empirically studied prescription drug promotion directed to consumers, patients, and health care providers or examined the content/features of promotional communications.•Synthesis yielded seven themes; studies testing promotional content and features with participants were the most numerous.•One area for further research includes emerging technologies used in promotion (e.g., social media).•Another area for research is to focus on targeted populations that may have unique communication needs around prescription drugs.•A third area for further research is the exploration of research quality, including measurement of commonly used constructs.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Bad Ad program provides an avenue for healthcare providers to report false or misleading prescription drug promotion. Yet, whether healthcare providers ...can detect such promotion, and whether they believe it should be reported to FDA, remain open questions. Consumer audiences may also be capable of detecting such promotion and believe it should be reported, but even less is known about capability and belief in this population. Across two experiments using mock pharmaceutical websites, this research investigated capability to detect and inclination to report deceptive prescription drug promotion among a sample of primary care physicians and consumers. Study 1 varied the number of deceptive claims and tactics on a website for a chronic pain medication, operationalized as none, two, or five. Study 2 varied the type of deceptive content on a website for a weight loss medication, operationalized as none, implicit, or explicit. Findings reveal that, in line with expectations from FDA's Bad Ad program, physicians can detect deceptive promotion and tend to believe it should be reported. Consumers are also capable of detecting deceptive promotion and tend to believe it should be reported, but their capabilities and beliefs regarding reporting are generally lower.
Federal agencies and self-regulatory bodies help to ensure prescription and nonprescription drug promotion contains accurate information; however, false or misleading claims may cause people to have ...inaccurate perceptions of a drug and inhibit their ability to make informed decisions. We conducted a systematic review assessing evidence from 2012-2021 on how consumers and healthcare providers (HCPs) interpret claims made indirectly or through inference (implied or implicit claims) as well as synthesizing prescription and nonprescription drug advertising claims that have been the subject of regulatory actions from 2017-2021. Our search identified 16 studies from the peer-reviewed literature and 26 letters or case reports issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or National Advertising Division (NAD). Results from peer-reviewed studies suggest that implied claims can result in inferences that may not be warranted by the material facts about the drug. Perceptions of a drug's efficacy and, to a lesser extent, risk, are influenced by implied and explicitly false claims in prescription drug promotion. Claims related to implied superiority and overstatement of efficacy were the most prevalent claims flagged for review and examined in the literature. These types of claims were also the subject of many of the compliance actions by the FDA and case reports from the NAD. More research is needed to understand how people interpret varying types of implied claims and the impact of such claims on key outcomes. From a policy standpoint, understanding how people interpret implied claims can inform how the FDA approaches these claims in the marketplace.
This study examined the impact of “New” and “#1 Prescribed” market claims and quantitative efficacy information on perceptions of a hypothetical prescription drug in a direct‐to‐consumer (DTC) print ...advertisement. We examined two market claims (New and #1 Prescribed), two efficacy levels (higher and lower), and a control condition without this information. Participants with diabetes were randomized to review one ad version and asked their perceptions of the ad's message, the drug's benefits, side effects and risks, doctors' opinions about the drug, and behavioral intention to use the drug, as well as recall and recognition of drug benefits and risks. Results suggest the market claim affects personal perceptions and perceptions of the ad's message about drug benefits and perceptions about doctors' opinions of the drug. Inclusion of quantitative information about product efficacy did not show a large influence on perceptions. These findings can help inform stakeholders and policy makers as they work to ensure DTC prescription drug promotion does not mislead patients.
To fulfill a key regulation pertaining to prescription drug broadcast advertising, a common practice is to present the major risks along with "adequate provision" referencing several sources where ...audiences can obtain the full product labeling. In recent years, questions have arisen about the unique value of the various sources of adequate provision and even whether sponsor webpages alone may sufficiently convey product labeling information. Cognizant of the sizable offline population, the present research investigates questions of access, ability, likelihood, willingness, and preference among a nationally representative sample of low- and non-Internet users who may wish to access the product labeling.
Group Marginalization Betts, Kevin R.; Hinsz, Verlin B.
Personality and social psychology review,
11/2013, Letnik:
17, Številka:
4
Journal Article
An extensive research literature has examined the reactions of individuals facing interpersonal rejection. Small groups can also be rejected, but current research tells us little about the ...experiences of groups and their members directly. We integrate findings from various literatures to gain insight into shared rejection experiences and their outcomes. Of most practical importance, we argue that groups can be expected to react with more hostility than individuals when rejected. Four existing models that account for how group processes might alter such reactions are examined: a need-threat model, a rejection-identification model, a multimotive model, and a dual attitudes model. Aspects of these models are then integrated into a unifying framework that is useful for understanding hostile reactions to group marginalization. Implications for natural groups such as terrorist cells, school cliques, racial and ethnic minorities, and gangs are discussed.
Consumers and primary care physicians (PCPs) sometimes encounter deceptive promotional claims about prescription drugs. Whether consumers and PCPs can detect deceptive claims or whether those claims ...negatively affect medical decision making, however, remain important, unanswered research questions.
This article explores (1) the ability of consumers and PCPs to identify deceptive prescription drug promotion at various levels of deception, (2) the influence of such tactics on obstructing risk recognition, and (3) whether perceived deception mediates relationships between exposure to deceptive tactics and various outcomes (including false-claim acceptance, attitudes, information-seeking intentions, and interest toward the promoted drug).
Two experiments—1 with consumers (N = 366) and 1 with PCPs (N = 378)—were conducted to determine whether participant exposure to deceptive prescription drug website content corresponds to detection and acceptance (or rejection) of claims and tactics. In each experiment, the number of deceptive claims and tactics on a consumer- or PCP-targeted website for a fictitious chronic pain medication were varied, in a 1 × 3 (none, fewer, more) between-subjects design.
Among consumers, exposure to more deceptive claims or tactics did not increase suspicion about the veracity of the website (relative to fewer claims and tactics) and actually had a limited positive direct effect on false-claim acceptance and attitudes toward the drug. Among PCPs, a mediation effect existed such that exposure to more deceptive claims and tactics resulted in higher perceived website deceptiveness relative to those in the fewer deceptive claims condition, which, in turn, resulted in lower acceptance of deceptive claims and tactics, lower perceived drug effectiveness, more negative attitudes toward the drug, and lower interest and intentions.
These experiments demonstrate potential differences between consumers and PCPs as well as implications for consumer and PCP vulnerability to website deception.
Consumers’ decision making about prescription drugs may be influenced by more than thoughts about drug efficacy and the potential for side effects. Choices may be based on tradeoffs among multiple ...factors, for example, medical condition, risk severity, risk likelihood, product efficacy, and resources. Some information used in tradeoff choices might be derived from marketing efforts by drug manufacturers. How market claims, such as “#1 Prescribed” may affect this tradeoff is an area that has yet to be explored fully.
Using conjoint analysis techniques, this research examined the tradeoff of market claim and efficacy information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) print advertising for prescription drugs.
Two hundred fifteen adult participants with a self-reported diagnosis of diabetes were recruited through an online consumer panel. Participants were presented a series of choices. Each choice pair represented a prescription diabetic nerve pain drug with a different efficacy level and one of the two had a market claim of “#1 Prescribed”. Participants indicated which drug they would prefer if they had to choose one. Results showed an advantage of #1 Prescribed. A drug without this claim needed at least 1.23% greater efficacy to be chosen over a drug with this claim.
Study findings align with previous research which found that extrinsic cues can influence consumer product choice, which has implications for optimal medication use.
PDF
