Dataset Information

Content analysis of false and misleading claims in television advertising for prescription and nonprescription drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Background

False and misleading advertising for drugs can harm consumers and the healthcare system, and previous research has demonstrated that physician-targeted drug advertisements may be misleading. However, there is a dearth of research comparing consumer-targeted drug advertising to evidence to evaluate whether misleading or false information is being presented in these ads.

Objective

To compare claims in consumer-targeted television drug advertising to evidence, in order to evaluate the frequency of false or misleading television drug advertising targeted to consumers.

Design

A content analysis of a cross-section of television advertisements for prescription and nonprescription drugs aired from 2008 through 2010. We analyzed commercial segments containing prescription and nonprescription drug advertisements randomly selected from the Vanderbilt Television News Archive, a census of national news broadcasts.

Main measures

For each advertisement, the most-emphasized claim in each ad was identified based on claim iteration, mode of communication, duration and placement. This claim was then compared to evidence by trained coders, and categorized as being objectively true, potentially misleading, or false. Potentially misleading claims omitted important information, exaggerated information, made lifestyle associations, or expressed opinions. False claims were factually false or unsubstantiated.

Key results

Of the most emphasized claims in prescription (n = 84) and nonprescription (n = 84) drug advertisements, 33 % were objectively true, 57 % were potentially misleading and 10 % were false. In prescription drug ads, there were more objectively true claims (43 %) and fewer false claims (2 %) than in nonprescription drug ads (23 % objectively true, 7 % false). There were similar numbers of potentially misleading claims in prescription (55 %) and nonprescription (61 %) drug ads.

Conclusions

Potentially misleading claims are prevalent throughout consumer-targeted prescription and nonprescription drug advertising on television. These results are in conflict with proponents who argue the social value of drug advertising is found in informing consumers about drugs.

SUBMITTER: Faerber AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3889958 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulations state that any prescription drug promotion that presents drug benefits to consumers must also disclose certain information about the drug's risks in a similar manner. Nearly three-quarters of all US mobile phone subscribers use a smartphone, and over half report receiving mobile advertisements on their device. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this project was to investigate how prescription drugs are being promoted to consumers using mobile technologies. We were particularly interested in the presentation of drug benefits and risks, with regard to presence, placement, and prominence. METHODS:We analyzed a sample of 51 mobile promotional communications and their associated linked landing pages. We assessed the content and format of the mobile communications and landing pages with regard to presentation of drug benefits and risks. RESULTS:Of the 51 mobile communications we coded, 41% (21/51) were product claim communications (includes the drug name, benefits, and risks), 22% (11/51) were reminder communications (includes drug name only), and 37% (19/51) were help-seeking communications (includes information about the medical condition but not the drug name). Some of the product claim communications (5/21, 24%) required scrolling to see all the benefit information; in contrast, 95% (20/21) required scrolling to see all the risk information. Of the 19 product claim communications that presented both benefits and risks, 95% (18/19) presented benefits before risks and 47% (9/19) used a bigger font for benefits than for risks. Most mobile communications (35/51, 69%) linked to branded drug websites with both benefits and risks, 25% (13/51) linked to a landing page with benefits but no visible risks, and 6% (3/51) linked to a landing page with risks but no visible benefits. Few landing pages (4/51, 8%) required scrolling to see all the benefit information; in contrast, 51% (26/51) required scrolling to see all the risk information. Of the 35 landing pages with both benefit and risk information, 71% (25/35) presented benefits before risks and 51% (18/35) used a bigger font for benefits than for risks. CONCLUSIONS:These results indicate that, while risks and benefits are both represented in mobile communications and their associated landing pages, they are not equally prominent and accessible. This has implications for compliance with FDA fair balance regulations.

Project description:Alcohol is the most common drug among youth and a major contributor to morbidity and mortality worldwide. Billions of dollars are spent annually marketing alcohol.To examine the reach of television alcohol advertising and its effect on drinking among underage youth.Longitudinal telephone- and web-based surveys conducted in 2011 and 2013 involving 2541 US adolescents 15 to 23 years of age at baseline, with 1596 of these adolescents completing the follow-up survey. Cued recall of television advertising images for top beer and distilled spirits brands that aired nationally in 2010-2011 (n = 351). Images were digitally edited to remove branding, and the respondents were queried about 20 randomly selected images. An alcohol advertising receptivity score was derived (1 point each for having seen the ad and for liking it, and 2 points for correct brand identification). Fast-food ads that aired nationally in 2010-2011 (n = 535) were similarly queried to evaluate message specificity.Among the underage youth at baseline, we determined (1) the onset of drinking among those who never drank, (2) the onset of binge drinking among those who were never binge drinkers, and (3) the onset of hazardous drinking among those with an Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test consumption subscore of less than 4. Multivariate regressions were used to predict each outcome, controlling for covariates (demographics, drinking among friends and parents, and sensation seeking), weighting to the US population, and using multiple imputation to address loss to follow-up.Underage participants were only slightly less likely than participants of legal drinking age to have seen alcohol ads (the mean percentage of ads seen were 23.4%, 22.7%, and 25.6%, respectively, for youth 15-17, 18-20, and 21-23 years of age; P <?.005). The transition to binge and hazardous drinking occurred for 29% and 18% of youth 15 to 17 years of age and for 29% and 19% of youth 18 to 20 years years of age, respectively. Among underage participants, the alcohol advertising receptivity score independently predicted the onset of drinking (adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.69 [95% CI, 1.17-2.44]), the onset of binge drinking (AOR, 1.38 [95% CI, 1.08-1.77]), and the onset of hazardous drinking (AOR, 1.49 [95% CI, 1.19-1.86]). Fast-food advertising receptivity was not associated with any drinking outcome.Receptivity to television alcohol advertising predicted the transition to multiple drinking outcomes. The findings are consistent with the idea that marketing self-regulation has failed to keep television alcohol advertising from reaching large numbers of underage persons and affecting their drinking patterns.

Project description:Reducing children's exposure to advertisements promoting unhealthy foods and beverages has been recognized by the World Health Organization as a key strategy to improve children's diets and reduce childhood obesity. To examine changes in children's exposure to food-related (food, beverage, and restaurant) television advertising, including for products high in nutrients to limit (NTL; ie, saturated fat, trans fat, total sugars, and sodium) based on federal Interagency Working Group guidelines, following changes in the voluntary industry self-regulatory Children's Food and Beverage Advertising Initiative (CFBAI). This repeated cross-sectional study used US television ratings data on advertising exposure from The Nielsen Company for 2013, 2014, 2015, 2018, and 2022. Food and beverage product advertisements were assessed for nutritional content. Participants included 2- to 5-year-old and 6-to 11-year-old children. Data analysis was performed from July 2023 to January 2024. Changes in CFBAI standards in 2014 and 2020. The primary outcome was the number of food-related advertisements seen per year and percentage of food and beverage product advertisements high in NTL, on all programming and children's programming (defined as ≥35% child audience share). From 2013 to 2022, total advertisements seen per year declined by 77.6% (from 4611 to 1035) for 2- to 5-year-olds and by 78.5% (from 4860 to 1046) for 6- to 11-year-olds. Advertisements seen on children's programming decreased by 95.1% (from 1703 to 84 per year) for 2- to 5-year-olds and by 97.0% (from 1745 to 52 per year) for 6- to 11-year-olds. The percentages of advertisements for products high in NTL decreased from 2013 to 2022 but were still high: 68.9% for all programming and 63.9% for children's programming for 2- to 5-year-olds, and 68.4% for all programming and 60.6% for children's programming for 6- to 11-year-olds. The majority (51%-52%) of CFBAI-member food and beverage advertisements on children's programming remained high in NTL. Black children saw more food-related television advertisements than White children (58% more for 2- to 5-year-olds and 72% more for 6- to 11-year-olds); however, the percentage of advertisements for food and beverage products high in NTL seen was similar by race. In this repeated cross-sectional study of children's exposure to food-related television advertisements, exposure via children's programming decreased substantially. However, most advertisements seen were still for unhealthy products, and exposure from all programming remained substantial. Findings of more than 90% of advertising exposure not from children's programming and more than 1000 food-related advertisements seen per year suggest the need for government regulations based on time of day rather than programming.