Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Complexity of Data Displays in Prescription Drug Advertisements for Healthcare Providers

  • Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Healthcare providers (HCPs) often encounter clinical trial results in the form of data displays in prescription drug promotions. Information conveyed in data displays vary in their presentation and complexity. This study describes characteristics of data displays in prescription drug advertising targeted to HCPs.

Methods

This study characterized the content of 140 data displays in 98 unique print advertisements from 2009 to present and identified in AdPharm, an online database of pharmaceutical advertisements. Two reviewers independently coded the advertisements for characteristics (κ = 0.85) including complexity, format, and quality.

Results

About one-third (32%) of the advertisements contained multiple data displays (range 2 to 6) and 44% showed clinical data from oncology trials; other disease domains were mental and behavioral health (14%), rheumatology and autoimmune disorders (8%), endocrinology (7%), cardiology (6%), infectious disease (6%), pulmonology and allergy (4%), and others (< 2% each). About one-half (51%) of displays were classified as “simple” which included “pseudographs” and basic tables or charts. “Complex” displays appeared as survival curves, line graphs, or bar graphs with complex features. Most complex displays included a comparator drug (90%), plain language restatement of the key finding (93%) and disclosure statements (91%) with additional study details, although their placement varied. Complex displays were of high quality, according to our selected indicators; our analysis found no data distortion or errors.

Conclusion

Data displays in prescription drug advertising are often highly complex. Future research assessing understanding of data displays and the potentially beneficial effect of disclosures and other features is warranted.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Data Availability

Study data are available from the authors upon reasonable request.

References

  1. Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Wallace RC, et al. The quantity and quality of scientific graphs in pharmaceutical advertisements. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(4):294–7. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.20703.x.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Schriger DL, Cooper RJ. Achieving graphical excellence: suggestions and methods for creating high-quality visual displays of experimental data. Ann Emerg Med. 2001;37(1):75–87. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2001.111570.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Boudewyns V, O’Donoghue AC, Paquin RS, et al. Physician interpretation of data of uncertain clinical utility in oncology prescription drug promotion. Oncologist. 2021;26(12):1071–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/onco.13972.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Leonardo Alves T, Lexchin J, Mintzes B. Medicines information and the regulation of the promotion of pharmaceuticals. Sci Eng Ethics. 2019;25(4):1167–92. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-018-0041-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Thompson J, Wines RC, Brewington M, Crotty K, Aikin KJ, Sullivan H. Healthcare providers’ understanding of data displays of clinical trial information: a scoping review of the literature. J Commun Healthc. 2022;2:1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Kahwati L, Carmody D, Berkman N, et al. Prescribers’ knowledge and skills for interpreting research results: a systematic review. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2017;37(2):129–36. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEH.0000000000000150.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Moynihan CK, Burke PA, Evans SA, et al. Physicians’ understanding of clinical trial data in professional prescription drug promotion. J Am Board Fam Med. 2018;31(4):645–9. https://doi.org/10.3122/jabfm.2018.04.170242.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Elting LS, Bodey GP. Is a picture worth a thousand medical words? A randomized trial of reporting formats for medical research data. Methods Inf Med. 1991;30(2):145–50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Elting LS, Martin CG, Cantor SB, Rubenstein EB. Influence of data display formats on physician investigators’ decisions to stop clinical trials: prospective trial with repeated measures. BMJ. 1999;318(7197):1527–31. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7197.1527.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Friederichs H, Ligges S, Weissenstein A. Using tree diagrams without numerical values in addition to relative numbers improves students’ numeracy skills: A randomized study in medical education. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(2):253–7. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x13504499.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET, Wicki B, Joeris A. Improving risk literacy in surgeons. Patient Educ Couns. 2016;99(7):1156–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2016.01.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Garcia-Retamero R, Petrova D, Cokely ET, Joeris A. Scientific risk reporting in medical journals can bias expert judgment: Comparing surgeons’ risk comprehension across reporting formats. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2020;26(2):283–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000242.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Kuijpers W, Giesinger JM, Zabernigg A, Young T, Friend E, Tomaszewska IM, Aaronson NK, Holzner B. Patients’ and health professionals’ understanding of and preferences for graphical presentation styles for individual-level EORTC QLQ-C30 scores. Qual Life Res. 2016;25(3):595–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-015-1107-3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Raina PS, Brehaut JC, Platt RW, Klassen TP, Moher D, St John P, Bryant D, Viola R, Pham B. The influence of display and statistical factors on the interpretation of metaanalysis results by physicians. Med Care. 2005;43(12):1242–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.mlr.0000185710.62071.7f.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Snyder CF, Smith KC, Bantug ET, Tolbert EE, Blackford AL, Brundage MD. What do these scores mean? Presenting patient-reported outcomes data to patients and clinicians to improve interpretability. Cancer. 2017;123(10):1848–59. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30530.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Windish DM, Huot SJ, Green ML. Medicine residents’ understanding of the biostatistics and results in the medical literature. JAMA. 2007;298(9):1010–22. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.298.9.1010.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Sullivan HW, Aikin KJ, Chung-Davies E, et al. Prescription drug promotion from 2001–2014: data from the U.S. food and drug administration. PLoS One. 2016;11(5):e0155035. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0155035.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S. Medical marketing in the United States, 1997–2016. JAMA. 2019;321:80–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2018.19320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Cooper RJ, Schriger DL, Close RJ. Graphical literacy: the quality of graphs in a large-circulation journal. Ann Emerg Med. 2002;40(3):317–22. https://doi.org/10.1067/mem.2002.127327.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Financial support for this study was provided entirely by a contract with the US Food and Drug Administration. The following authors are employed by the sponsor: Kathryn J. Aikin and Helen W. Sullivan. This article reflects the view of the authors and should not be construed to represent FDA’s view or policies.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. RTI International, 3040 E, Cornwallis Road, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709, USA

    Jessica Thompson PhD, Molly Lynch MPH, Suzanne Dolina MPH & Micaela Brewington BS

  2. U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, Silver Spring, MD, USA

    Helen W. Sullivan PhD & Kathryn J. Aikin PhD

Authors
  1. Jessica Thompson PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Molly Lynch MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Helen W. Sullivan PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Kathryn J. Aikin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Suzanne Dolina MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Micaela Brewington BS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

JT: design/acquisition/analysis and interpretation; draft and revision; final approval; agreement to be accountable; ML: design/acquisition/analysis and interpretation; draft and revision; final approval; agreement to be accountable; HWS: conceptualization/design/interpretation; draft and revision; final approval; agreement to be accountable; KJA: conceptualization/design/interpretation; draft and revision; final approval; agreement to be accountable; SD: analysis and interpretation; draft and revision; final approval; agreement to be accountable; MB: analysis and interpretation; draft and revision; final approval; agreement to be accountable.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Thompson PhD.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interests.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Thompson, J., Lynch, M., Sullivan, H.W. et al. Complexity of Data Displays in Prescription Drug Advertisements for Healthcare Providers. Ther Innov Regul Sci 57, 712–716 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00523-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00523-3

Keywords

Search

Navigation