Advertisement

Annals of Behavioral Medicine

, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 311–322 | Cite as

Randomized Study of Placebo and Framing Information in Direct-to-Consumer Print Advertisements for Prescription Drugs

  • Amie C. O’DonoghueEmail author
  • Helen W. Sullivan
  • Kathryn J. Aikin
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Research suggests that quantitative information in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug ads may be helpful for consumers.

Purpose

The objective was to examine the effect of adding placebo rates and framing to DTC ads.

Methods

In study 1, 2,000 Internet panel members with chronic pain participated in a randomized controlled experiment of DTC ads varying in placebo rate and framing. In study 2, 596 physicians ranked DTC ads varying in placebo rate and framing by how well they conveyed scientific information and their usefulness for patients.

Results

In study 1, participants who viewed placebo rates were able to recall them and use them to form certain perceptions. A mixed frame led to lower placebo rate recall and perceived efficacy. In study 2, overall, physicians preferred a placebo/single frame ad.

Conclusions

Adding placebo rates to DTC ads may be useful for consumers. The evidence does not support using a mixed frame.

Key words

DTC advertising Placebo Mixed frame Quantitative 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The OMB Control Number for this study is 0910-0692. We would like to thank Adam Rosenblatt, M.A., of Penn Schoen Berland for his assistance with data collection and Kayla Gray of RTI International for her assistance with stimuli development. They both received compensation for their work through contracts with FDA. The study was funded by FDA, the organization at which all authors are employed.

Authors’ Statement of Conflict of Interest and Adherence to Ethical Standards

Authors O’Donoghue, Sullivan, and Aikin declare that they have no conflict of interest. All procedures, including the informed consent process, were conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation (institutional and national) and with the Helsinki Declaration of 1975, as revised in 2000.

References

  1. 1.
    Prescription Drug Advertisements, 21C.F.R. Sect. 202.1 (2012).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz L, Tremmel J, Welch HG. Direct to consumer advertisements for prescription drugs: What are Americans being sold? Lancet. 2001; 358: 1141-1146.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagerlin A, Ubel PA, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Making numbers matter: Present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007; 31: S47-S56.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lipkus I. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: Suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007; 27: 697-713.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    O'Donoghue AC, Sullivan HW, Aikin KJ, Chowdhury D, Moultrie RR, Rupert DJ. Presenting efficacy information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. Patient Educ Couns; in press (available online 25 Dec 2013). doi: 10.1016/j.pec.2013.12.010.
  6. 6.
    Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: Two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150: 516-527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Applebaum PS, Roth LH, Lidz C. The therapeutic misconception: Informed consent in psychiatric research. Int J Law Psychiatry. 1983; 5: 319-329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Stead M, Eadie D, Gordon D, Angus K. “Hello, hello—it’s English I speak!”: A qualitative exploration of patients’ understanding of the science of clinical trials. J Med Ethics. 2005; 31: 664-669.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Miller JD. The measurement of civic scientific literacy. Public Underst Sci. 1998; 7: 203-223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Petty RE. Two routes to persuasion: State of the art. In: d’Ydewalle G, Eelen P, Bertelson P, eds. International Perspectives on Psychological Science, Vol. 2: The State of the Art. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.; 1994:229247.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: Two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150: 516-527.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science. 1981; 211: 453-8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. Risk communication in clinical practice: Putting cancer in context. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1999; 25: 124-133.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Moxley A, O’Connell D, McGettigan P, Henry D. Describing treatment effects to patients: How they are expressed makes a difference. J Gen Intern Med. 2003; 18: 948-959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    O’Connor AM. Effects of framing and levels of probability on patients’ preferences for cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol. 1989; 42: 119-126.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bernstein LM, Chapman GB, Elstein AS. Framing effects in choices between multi-outcome life-expectancy lotteries. Med Decis Making. 1999; 19: 324-338.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Peters E, Hart PS, Fraenkel L. Informing patients: The influence of numeracy, framing, and format of side effect information on risk perceptions. Med Decis Making. 2011; 31: 432-436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    McNeil B, Pauker SG, Tversky A. On the framing of medical decisions. In: Bell DC, Raffa H, Tversky A, eds. Decision Making: Descriptive, Normative, and Prescriptive Interactions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 1988: 562-568.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lipkus IM, Samsa G, Rimer BK. General performance on a numeracy scale among highly educated samples. Med Decis Making. 2001; 21: 37-44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jeffery RW. Risk behaviors and health: Contrasting individual and population perspectives. Am Psychol. 1989; 44: 1194-1202.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997; 127(11): 966-972.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Herr PM, Kardes FR, Kim J. Effects of word-of-mouth and product-attribute information on persuasion: An accessibility–diagnosticity perspective. J Consum Res. 1991; 17: 454-462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mizerski RW. An attribution explanation of the disproportionate influence of unfavorable information. J Consum Res. 1982; 9: 301-310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Making. 2000; 13: 1-17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Slovic P, Peters E. Risk perception and affect. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2006; 15: 322-325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nelson W, Fagerlin A, Peters E. Clinical implications of numeracy: Theory and practice. Ann Behav Med. 2008; 35: 261-274.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Society of Behavioral Medicine (outside the USA) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amie C. O’Donoghue
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Helen W. Sullivan
    • 1
  • Kathryn J. Aikin
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA
  2. 2.U.S. Food and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations