Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Communicating Benefit and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer Print Advertisements: A Randomized Study

  • Policy: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstrac

Background

Previous research demonstrated that providing qualitative and quantitative information in a “drug facts box” may help individuals understand prescription drug information in print-based direct-to-consumer advertisements. The authors sought to determine whether qualitative, quantitative, or a combination thereof best communicates benefit and risk information.

Methods

To replicate and extend previous research, the authors used simple quantitative drug information. A randomized controlled study was conducted with 5067 Internet panelists with heartburn. Participants viewed a drug facts box with benefit and risk information that varied the presence or absence of qualitative summaries and absolute frequencies, percentages, and absolute differences. Measures included knowledge of drug benefits and risks, perceptions, and intentions.

Results

Providing absolute frequencies and percentages most improved participants’ drug knowledge and affected perceptions and intentions.

Conclusions

The study findings suggest that, for simple drug information, adding absolute frequencies and percentages to direct-to-consumer advertisements may benefit consumers. Absolute differences and qualitative labels may not be needed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Prescription Drug Advertisements, 21 CFR §202.1 (2012).

  2. Aikin KJ, O’Donoghue AC, Swasy JL, Sullivan HW. Randomized trial of risk information formats in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. Med Decis Making. 2011;31 (6):e23–e33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Menon AM, Deshpande AD, Perri M III, Zinkan GM. Consumers’ attention to the brief summary in print direct-to-consumer advertisements: Perceived usefulness in patient-physician discussions. J Public Policy Mark. 2003;22:181–191.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Schwartz LM, Wolshin S. The drug facts box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:14069–14074.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Getting to better prescription drug information. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1582–1584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Bhutada NS, Deshpande AD, Menon AM, Perri M III. Consumers’ evaluations of brief summary formats of print direct-to-consumer advertisements. Int J Pharm Health Care Mark. 2013;7:296–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Davis JJ. Riskier than we think? The relationship between risk statement completeness and perceptions of direct to consumer advertised prescription drugs. J Health Comm. 2000;5:349–369.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Davis JJ. Consumers’ preference for the communication of risk information in drug advertising. Health Affair. 2007;26:863–870.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Over-the-counter human drugs; labeling requirements. Fed Regist. 1999;64:13254–303. Codified at 21 CFR §201.66.

  10. Vigilante WJ, Wogalter MS. The preferred order of over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical label components. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:973–988.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Levy AS, Fein SB, Schucker RE. More effective nutrition label formats are not necessarily more preferred. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992;92:1230–1234.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Lorch R, Lorch E. Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. J Educ Psychol. 1996;88:38–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lipkus I. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:697–713.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. 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. 2014;95:271–280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Welch HG. The value of benefit data in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Health Aff. 2004;W4 (suppl):234–245.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD001431.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Trevena LJ, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Edwards A, et al. Presenting quantitative information about decision outcomes: a risk communication primer for patient decision aid developers. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13 (suppl 2):S7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. West SL, Squiers LB, McCormack L, et al. Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:447–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Berry D, Raynor T, Knapp P, Bersellini E. Over the counter medicines and the need for immediate action: a further evaluation of European Commission recommended wordings for communicating risk. Patient Educ Couns. 2004;53:129–134.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Theil M. The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: a meta-analysis. J Risk Res. 2002;5:177–186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Visschers VH, Meertens RM, Passchier WW, De Vries NN. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009;29:267–287.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:655–662.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:87–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Peters E. Beyond comprehension: the role of numeracy in judgments and decision making. Curr Dir Pyschol Sci. 2012;21:31–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Wilson EAH, Wolf MS. Working memory and the design of health materials: a cognitive factors perspective. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:318–322.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. National Center for Health Statistics. Data File Documentation, National Health Interview Survey, 2007 [machine-readable data file and documentation]. Hyattsville, MD: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Black W, Welch HG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–972.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Hawley ST, Zikmund-Fisher B, Ubel P, Jancovic A, Lucas T, Fagerlin A. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:448–455.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Office of Prescription Drug Promotion, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Avenue, Silver Spring, MD, 20993, USA

    Helen W. Sullivan PhD, MPH, Amie C. O’Donoghue PhD & Kathryn J. Aikin PhD

Authors
  1. Helen W. Sullivan PhD, MPH
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amie C. O’Donoghue PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kathryn J. Aikin PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Helen W. Sullivan PhD, MPH.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sullivan, H.W., O’Donoghue, A.C. & Aikin, K.J. Communicating Benefit and Risk Information in Direct-to-Consumer Print Advertisements: A Randomized Study. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 493–502 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015572370

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479015572370

Keywords

Search

Navigation