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.