News Release

US direct-to-consumer advertising ambiguous in communication of drug benefits

Peer-Reviewed Publication

The Lancet_DELETED

N.B. Please note that if you are outside North America the embargo for Lancet press material is 0001 hours UK time Friday 5th October 2001.

A study in this week's issue of THE LANCET highlights how US consumers are given incomplete prescription-drug information in direct-to-consumer advertising campaigns.

Pharmaceutical companies spent US$1.8 billion on direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription drugs in 1999. Reaction to this form of advertising for prescription drugs is mixed; proponents argue that it provides consumers with information about treatment options, and might help to increase public awareness and treatment of serious diseases such as diabetes, high blood pressure, or depression. Opponents express concern that direct-to-consumer advertisements might inappropriately increase patient demand for specific (and often costly) agents, which might have a negative effect on medical practice and on the physician-patient relationship. Steven Woloshin, Lisa Schwartz, and colleagues from the Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center and Dartmouth Medical School, USA, investigated what messages are being communicated to the public by these advertisements.

Prescription-drug advertising was assessed in 10 leading US consumer magazines (Better Homes and Gardens, family Circle, Gentlemen's Quarterly, Good Housekeeping, Ladies Home Journal, Men's Health, Newsweek, People, Sports Illustrated, Time). The investigators examined seven issues of each of the titles published between July, 1998, and July, 1999.

67 advertisements appeared a total of 211 times during the study, and were more often placed in magazines predominantly read by women. Of these, 133 (63%) were for drugs to alleviate symptoms, 54 (26%) to treat disease, and 23 (11%) to prevent illness. In the 67 different advertisements, promotional techniques used included emotional appeals (45, 67%) and encouragement of consumers to consider medical causes for their experiences (26, 39%). Nearly 90% of advertisements described the benefit of medication in vague, qualitative terms rather than with data; however, half the advertisements used data to describe infrequent side-effects. None of the advertisements mentioned cost.

Steven Woloshin comments: "Consumers are increasingly exposed to direct-to-consumer advertisements for prescription products. In turn, physicians are increasingly confronted with patients who ask questions, or who make suggestions, on the basis of these advertisements. We hope that our study has provided clinicians with some sense of the content of direct-to-consumer advertisements. Our findings indicate that these advertisements rarely quantify a medication's expected benefit, and instead make an emotional appeal. This strategy probably leaves many readers with the perception that the drug's benefit is large and that everyone who uses the drug will enjoy the benefit. The provision of complete information about benefit would serve the interests of physicians and the public."

###

Contact: Dr Steven Woloshin, VA Outcomes Group (111B),Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Dartmouth Medical School, White River Junction, VT 05009,USA;T) 1-802-296-5178;F) 1-802-296-6325; E) steven.woloshin@dartmouth.edu


Disclaimer: AAAS and EurekAlert! are not responsible for the accuracy of news releases posted to EurekAlert! by contributing institutions or for the use of any information through the EurekAlert system.