corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 19026

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Shwartz LM, Woloshin S, Welch HG.
Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials.
Ann Intern Med 2009 April 21; 150:(8):516-27
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19221371


Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer prescription drug ads typically fail to provide fundamental information that consumers need to make informed decisions: data on how well the drug works.

OBJECTIVE: To see whether providing consumers with a drug facts box-a table quantifying outcomes with and without the drug-improves knowledge and affects judgments about prescription medications.

DESIGN: Two randomized, controlled trials conducted between October 2006 and April 2007: a symptom drug box trial using direct-to-consumer ads for a histamine-2 blocker and a proton-pump inhibitor to treat heartburn, and a prevention drug box trial using direct-to-consumer ads for a statin and clopidogrel to prevent cardiovascular events.

SETTING: National sample of U.S. adults identified by random-digit dialing.

PARTICIPANTS: Adults age 35 to 70 years who completed a mailed survey; the final samples comprised 231 participants with completed surveys in the symptom drug box trial (49% response rate) and 219 in the prevention drug box trial (46% response rate).

INTERVENTION: In both trials, the control group received 2 actual drug ads (including both the front page and brief summary). The drug box group received the same ads, except that the brief summary was replaced by a drug facts box.

MEASUREMENTS: Choice between drugs (primary outcome of the symptom drug box trial) and accurate perceptions of drug benefits and side effects (primary outcome of the prevention drug box trial).

RESULTS: In the symptom drug box trial, 70% of the drug box group and 8% of the control group correctly identified the PPI as being “a lot more effective” than the histamine-2 blocker (P < 0.001), and 80% and 38% correctly recognized that the side effects of the 2 drugs were similar (P < 0.001). When asked what they would do if they had bothersome heartburn and could have either drug for free, 68% of the drug box group and 31% of the control group chose the proton-pump inhibitor, the superior drug (P < 0.001). In the prevention drug box trial, the drug box improved consumers\’ knowledge of the benefits and side effects of a statin and clopidogrel. For example, 72% of the drug box group and 9% of the control group correctly quantified the benefit (absolute risk reduction) of the statin (P < 0.001). Most of the control participants overestimated this benefit, and 65% did so by a factor of 10 or more.

LIMITATIONS: The trials tested drug boxes in only 4 direct-to-consumer ads. If other direct-to-consumer ads were to communicate outcome data better, the effect of the drug box would be reduced.

CONCLUSION: A drug facts box improved U.S. consumers’ knowledge of prescription drug benefits and side effects. It resulted in better choices between drugs for current symptoms and corrected the overestimation of benefit in the setting of prevention.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute and Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education Program.

Keywords:
Adult Advertising as Topic methods* Aged Cardiovascular Diseases prevention & control Consumer Health Information methods* Female Heartburn drug therapy Histamine H2 Antagonists adverse effects Histamine H2 Antagonists therapeutic use Humans Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors adverse effects Hydroxymethylglutaryl-CoA Reductase Inhibitors therapeutic use Male Middle Aged Patient Education as Topic methods Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors adverse effects Platelet Aggregation Inhibitors therapeutic use Prescription Drugs adverse effects* Prescription Drugs therapeutic use* Proton Pump Inhibitors adverse effects Proton Pump Inhibitors therapeutic use Ticlopidine/adverse effects Ticlopidine/analogs & derivatives Ticlopidine/therapeutic use

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963