Dataset Information

Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology advertising guidelines: How likely are member clinics to maintain compliance after resolving their violations?

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To evaluate the Society for Assisted Reproductive Technology (SART) member in vitro fertilization centers' compliance with SART's advertising guidelines after delayed correction of previous violations.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Internet.

Patients

None.

Interventions

None.

Main outcome measures

Clinics that were cited for noncompliance with SART advertising guidelines in 2019 and exceeded the two-week grace period in correcting their violations were studied. These clinics were rereviewed in 2020, at least 6 months after their initial citation, for violations of SART advertising guidelines in all six categories: supplemental data noncompliance, link to SART Clinical Summary Report and disclaimer statement missing, unsubstantiated claims, statements denigrating other clinics, and claims of superiority.

Results

In 2019, 44 (27%) of 161 of clinics reviewed by the SART advertising committee had at least one violation that was eventually resolved but not within the two-week grace period. On rereview in 2020, one clinic had not renewed its SART membership and 10 (23%) of the remaining 43 clinics were noted to have violations at the subsequent review. Improper presentation of supplemental data was the most common violation category in both the initial review, 32 (73%) of 44 clinics, and on rereview, 7 (70%) of 10 clinics cited a second time for violations.

Conclusions

Of the in vitro fertilization clinics with previous violations with delayed correction in 2019, 77% were subsequently compliant when reevaluated in 2020, indicating that advertising committee disciplinary and educational measures were largely effective. The most common citation for both years was maintaining consistent and transparent supplemental data on their websites.

SUBMITTER: Sauerbrun-Cutler MT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8441565 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe advertising of e-cigarettes in the UK is regulated through the revised EU Tobacco Products Directive and the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations, with further rules set out in the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) Committees of Advertising (CAP) Code. Focusing on the ASA CAP Code Rules, we examined e-cigarette advertising regulation compliance in traditional advertising channels and on social media.MethodsWe conducted a content analysis of UK e-cigarette and related product advertising using a randomly selected sample (n = 130) of advertising in traditional channels and on Instagram which appeared between January and December 2019. All ads were independently double-coded to assess compliance with each CAP Code Rule.ResultsIn traditional channels, our sample of advertising had largely good compliance. Only very small numbers of these ads appeared to be clearly in breach of any of the ASA rules (5% were in breach of Rule 22.7; 2% of Rule 22.9; and 1% of Rule 22.10). In contrast, we judged that all of the Instagram sample (n = 30) was in breach of Rule 22.12. For some rules, it was not possible to make definitive judgments about compliance, given uncertainty regarding how a rule should be interpreted and applied.ConclusionsWe found overall good compliance for advertising in traditional channels, but assessed all of our social media advertising samples was in breach of regulations. Current guidance on e-cigarette advertising could be improved to facilitate e-cigarette advertising assessment and regulation. It would be beneficial to bring consumer perspectives into the assessment of regulation compliance.ImplicationsThe regulation of e-cigarette advertising is a global concern. The UK Government has a statutory obligation to review the Tobacco and Related Products Regulations by May 2021. This study assessed compliance with current UK e-cigarette advertising regulations on placement and content. We identified areas where greater clarity is needed and outlined implications for future regulation.

Project description:ImportanceMisuse and overselling of over-the-counter pharmaceuticals poses a major burden on both private and public health expenditures.ObjectiveTo seek evidence on whether over-the-counter medication dispensing behavior complies or conflicts with the protocols indicated in practice standards and guidelines of a national professional pharmacy organization.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study was undertaken in 205 pharmacies in the wider Brisbane, Australia, area. Two standardized patient (SP) scenarios were developed to evaluate noncompliant behavior. Data collection for scenario 1 was conducted between November 23 and December 9, 2016. Data collection for scenario 2 was conducted between September 1 and 28, 2017. A 2-sample test of proportions and a probit regression model were used to evaluate the likelihood of noncompliant treatments and overtreatments in each case scenario. Statistical analysis was performed from January 30 to June 21, 2018, and revised in May 2019.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes were the observed likelihood of noncompliant treatments and overtreatments. Noncompliance is defined as treatments not complying with practice standards and guidelines set by the professional pharmacy society. Noncompliant treatments include undertreatment (patient did not receive necessary treatment) and overtreatments (patient was supplied with more than sufficient treatments) in both scenarios.ResultsIn scenario 1, 9 trained female SPs visited 89 pharmacies to request emergency hormonal contraception from pharmacy staff. In 45 cases, SPs reported having unprotected intercourse within the last 24 hours (case 1A), and in 44 cases, SPs reported having unprotected intercourse more than 72 hours ago (case 1B), which is past the efficacy threshold of over-the-counter emergency hormonal contraception. In scenario 2, 11 SPs (5 male and 6 female) visited 150 pharmacies (154 visits in total) to request treatment for family members or a partner with symptoms indicating bacterial conjunctivitis (case 2A; n = 73) or viral conjunctivitis (case 2B; n = 81). In scenario 1-dispensing emergency hormonal contraception when physician referral is recommended-21 of 44 pharmacists (47.7%) in case 1B violated the recommendation by selling the over-the-counter medication. With the inclusion of both no physician referral and emergency hormonal contraception sold, this rate increased to 79.5% (35 of 44 pharmacists). In scenario 2-1 case each of bacterial and viral conjunctivitis-overtreatment occurred in 55 of 154 cases (35.7%). In both scenarios, 140 of 243 pharmacies (57.6%) followed dispensing behavior compliant with the protocol, while 76 of 243 pharmacies (31.3%) involved some form of overtreatment or overselling of medication. Some evidence of an association between sex of SP and pharmacist was also found.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the market for dispensing over-the-counter medication in Australia is regulated, relatively high rates of overtreatment and some cases of undertreatment were observed in this study. Given the unintended adverse effects, including overuse of antibiotics and corticosteroids, these observations suggest the advisability of regulatory intervention ensuring compliance with professional protocols.