Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 14, Issue 11, pp 651–657 | Cite as

Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public

  • Robert A. Bell
  • Richard L. Kravitz
  • Michael S. Wilkes


OBJECTIVE: Drug manufacturers are intensely promoting their products directly to consumers, but the impact has not been widely studied. Consumers’ awareness and understanding of, attitudes toward, and susceptibility to direct-to-consumer (DTC) drug advertising were examined.

DESIGN: Random-digit dialing telephone survey with a random household member selection procedure (completion and response rates, 58% and 69%, respectively).

SETTING: Respondents were interviewed while they were at their residences.

PARTICIPANTS: Complete data were obtained from 329 adults in Sacramento County, California.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Outcome measures included awareness of advertisements for 10 selected drugs, misconceptions about DTC advertising, attitudes toward DTC ads, and behavioral responses to such promotions. The influence of demographic characteristics, health status, attitudes, beliefs, and media exposure on awareness and behaviors was examined. On average, respondents were aware of advertisements for 3.7 of the 10 drugs; awareness varied from 8% for Buspar (buspirone) to 72% for Claritin (loratadine). Awareness was associated with prescription drug use, media exposure, positive attitudes toward DTC advertising, poorer health, and insurance status. Substantial misconceptions were revealed; e.g., 43% thought that only “completely safe” drugs could be advertised. Direct-to-consumer advertisements had led one third of respondents to ask their physicians for drug information and one fifth to request a prescription.

CONCLUSIONS: Direct-to-consumer advertisements are reaching the public, but selectively so, and affecting their behaviors. Implications for public policy are examined.

Key Words

prescription drugs advertising drug safety drug promotion drug regulation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Mueller C, Schur C, O’Connell J. Prescription drug spending: the impact of age and chronic disease status. Am J Public Health. 1997;87:1626–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Giaquinta D. Drug formularies—good or evil? A view from a managed care provider. Cardiology. 1994;85(suppl 1):30–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Jaklevic MC. Prescribed cutback: HMOs shift risk to doc groups to curb drug utilization. Mod Healthcare. 1997;27(29):34.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Growth seen in ads for direct-to-consumer drugs. Am Med News. April 27, 1998:16.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ’t Hoen E. Direct-to-consumer advertising: for better profits or for better health? Am J Health-System Pharmacy. 1998;55:594–7.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Alperstein NM, Peyrot M. Consumer awareness of prescription drug advertising. J Advertising Res. 1993;33(4):50–6.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rogers EM. Diffusion of Innovations. 3rd ed. New York, NY: The Free Press; 1983:241–70.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bradley L, Zito JM. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Med Care. 1997;35:86–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Waksberg J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing. J Am Stat Assoc. 1978;73:40–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hagen DE, Collier CM. Must respondent selection procedures for telephone surveys be invasive? Public Opin Q. 1983;47:547–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cronbach LJ. Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika. 1951;16:297–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carmines EG, Zeller RA. Reliability and Validity Assessment. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1979.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ware JE Jr. SF-36 Health Survey: Manual And Interpretation. Boston, Mass: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center; 1993.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bentler PM, Wu EJC. EQS for Windows Users Guide. Encino, Calif: Multivariate Software, Inc.; 1995.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hosmer DW, Lemeshow S. Applied Logistic Regression. New York, NY: John Wiley; 1989.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Everett SE. Lay audience response to prescription drug advertising. J Advertising Res. 1991;31(2):43–9.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nordenberg T. Direct to you: TV drug ads that make sense. FDA Consumer. 1998;32:7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Keefe DJ. Persuasion: Theory and Research. Newbury Park, Calif: Sage; 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morris LA, Brinberg D, Klimberg R, Rivera C, Millstein LG. Miscomprehension rates for prescription drug advertisements. Curr Issues Res Advertising. 1986;9(1,2):93–117.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Morris LA, Brinberg D, Klimberg R, Millstein L, Rivera C. Consumer attitudes about advertisements for medicinal drugs. Soc Sci Med. 1986;22:629–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Percy L, Rossiter JR. A model of brand awareness and brand attitude advertising strategies. Psychol Marketing. 1992;9:263–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sitthi-Amorn C, Ngamvithayapongse J. The role of media and communication in improving the use of drugs and other technologies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1998;14:71–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro MF. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: Experts’ assessments. Ann Intern Med. 1992;116:912–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lexchin J. What information do physicians receive from pharmaceutical representatives? Can Fam Physician. 1997;43:941–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Vener AM, Krupka LR. Over-the-counter drug advertising in gender oriented popular magazines. J Drug Educ. 1986;16:367–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert A. Bell
    • 1
  • Richard L. Kravitz
    • 2
  • Michael S. Wilkes
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of CommunicationUniversity of CaliforniaDavis
  2. 2.Division of General Internal Medicine and Director, Center for Health Services Research in Primary CareUniversity of CaliforniaDavis, Sacramento
  3. 3.Department of Medicine, School of MedicineUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos Angeles

Personalised recommendations