| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
1 Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Calif
2 Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
3 School of Public Health, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, Tex
4 Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Tex
5 Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
6 Annenberg School for Communication, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
7 Department of Family Medicine & Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pa
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Dominick L. Frosch, PhD, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, 911 Broxton Plaza, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1736, dfrosch{at}mednet.ucla.edu
PURPOSE American television viewers see as many as 16 hours of prescription drug advertisements (ads) each year, yet no research has examined how television ads attempt to influence consumers. This information is important, because ads may not meet their educational potential, possibly prompting consumers to request prescriptions that are clinically inappropriate or more expensive than equally effective alternatives.
METHODS We coded ads shown during evening news and prime time hours for factual claims they make about the target condition, how they attempt to appeal to consumers, and how they portray the medication and lifestyle behaviors in the lives of ad characters.
RESULTS Most ads (82%) made some factual claims and made rational arguments (86%) for product use, but few described condition causes (26%), risk factors (26%), or prevalence (25%). Emotional appeals were almost universal (95%). No ads mentioned lifestyle change as an alternative to products, though some (19%) portrayed it as an adjunct to medication. Some ads (18%) portrayed lifestyle changes as insufficient for controlling a condition. The ads often framed medication use in terms of losing (58%) and regaining control (85%) over some aspect of life and as engendering social approval (78%). Products were frequently (58%) portrayed as a medical breakthrough.
CONCLUSIONS Despite claims that ads serve an educational purpose, they provide limited information about the causes of a disease or who may be at risk; they show characters that have lost control over their social, emotional, or physical lives without the medication; and they minimize the value of health promotion through lifestyle changes. The ads have limited educational value and may oversell the benefits of drugs in ways that might conflict with promoting population health.
Key Words: Pharmaceutical marketing • consumers • content analysis • qualitative research • advertising
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  A. L. Pegoraro, S. M. Ayer, and N. J. O'Reilly Consumer Consumption and Advertising Through Sport American Behavioral Scientist, June 1, 2010; 53(10): 1454 - 1475. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 E. Gambrill Evidence-Informed Practice: Antidote to Propaganda in the Helping Professions? Research on Social Work Practice, May 1, 2010; 20(3): 302 - 320. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 D. L. Frosch, D. Grande, D. M. Tarn, and R. L. Kravitz A Decade of Controversy: Balancing Policy With Evidence in the Regulation of Prescription Drug Advertising Am J Public Health, January 1, 2010; 100(1): 24 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. M. Schwartz, S. Woloshin, and H. G. Welch Using a Drug Facts Box to Communicate Drug Benefits and Harms: Two Randomized Trials Ann Intern Med, April 21, 2009; 150(8): 516 - 527. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 H. M Krumholz and J. S Ross Relationships with the drug industry: More regulation, greater transparency BMJ, February 3, 2009; 338(feb03_2): b211 - b211. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Mintzes Should Canada allow direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs?: NO Can Fam Physician, February 1, 2009; 55(2): 131 - 133. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Mintzes Le Canada devrait-il autoriser la publicite directe des medicaments d'ordonnance?: NON Can Fam Physician, February 1, 2009; 55(2): 135 - 138. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 B. Parnes, P. C. Smith, C. Gilroy, J. Quintela, C. B. Emsermann, L. M. Dickinson, and J. M. Westfall Lack of Impact of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising on the Physician-Patient Encounter in Primary Care: A SNOCAP Report Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2009; 7(1): 41 - 46. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 P. Rutter and S. Gilbody The European pharmaceutical industry: coming to a screen near you? J R Soc Med, October 1, 2008; 101(10): 485 - 488. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
B. Mintzes Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs BMJ, September 2, 2008; 337(sep02_1): a985 - a985. [Full Text]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 G. T. Nguyen, M. N. Wittink, G. F. Murray, and F. K. Barg More Than Just a Communication Medium: What Older Adults Say About Television and Depression Gerontologist, June 1, 2008; 48(3): 300 - 310. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange On TRACK: Primary Care Opportunities for Filling Unmet Need Ann. Fam. Med, May 1, 2007; 5(3): 270 - 272. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange Time to Ban Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Marketing Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2007; 5(2): 101 - 104. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange On TRACK: Intended and Unintended Consequences of Direct-to-Consumer Drug Marketing Ann. Fam. Med, March 1, 2007; 5(2): 175 - 178. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K. C. Stange In This Issue: Doctor-Patient and Drug Company-Patient Communication Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2007; 5(1): 2 - 4. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. A. Kessler and D. A. Levy Direct-to-Consumer Advertising: Is It Too Late to Manage the Risks? Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2007; 5(1): 4 - 5. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
Read all TRACK Comments
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
