Prescription Drug Advertising: Medical Journal Practices Under Different Types of Control

Najman, J. M.; Siskind,; Bain, Christopher

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.1979.tb127012.x

Cited by 10 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One previous study examined journal advertisements in different countries and concluded that the quality of advertisements, as measured by six characteristics including the relative frequency and size of the generic and trade names and the amount of space allocated to indications and safety information, was affected by the method of regulation; however, it analysed only advertisements published between 1961 and 1977. 5 More recent literature has compared drug advertisements in different countries but did not explicitly assess approaches to regulation. 6 7 Given that drug promotion has an established effect on physician prescribing practices, 8 it is essential to examine how current regulations affect the quality of journal advertisements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Quality of advertisements for prescription drugs in family practice medical journals published in Australia, Canada and the USA with different regulatory controls: a cross-sectional study

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo assess if different forms of regulation lead to differences in the quality of journal advertisements.DesignCross-sectional study.ParticipantsThirty advertisements from family practice journals published from 2013 to 2015 were extracted for three countries with distinct regulatory pharmaceutical promotion systems: Australia, Canada and the USA.Primary and secondary outcome measuresAdvertisements under each regulatory system were compared concerning three domains: information included in the advertisement, references to scientific evidence and pictorial appeals and portrayals. An overall ranking for advertisement quality among countries was determined using the first two domains as the information assessed has been associated with more appropriate prescribing.ResultsAdvertisements varied significantly for number of claims with quantitative benefit (Australia: 0.0 (0.0–3.0); Canada: 0.0 (0.0–5.0); USA: 1.0 (0.0–6.0); p=0.01); statistical method used in reporting benefit (relative risk reduction, absolute risk reduction and number needed to treat; Australia: 6.7%, n=2; Canada: 10.0%, n=3; USA: 36.6%, n=11; p=0.02); mention of adverse effects, warnings or contraindications (Australia: 13.3%, n=4; Canada: 23.3%, n=7; USA: 53.3%, n=16; p=0.002); equal prominence between safety and benefit information (Australia: 25.0%, n=1; Canada: 28.6%, n=2; USA: 75.0%, n=12; p=0.04); and methodological quality of references score (Australia: 0.4150 (0.25–0.70); Canada: 0.25 (0.00–0.63); USA: 0.25 (0.00–0.75); p<0.001). The USA ranked first, Canada second and Australia third for overall quality of journal advertisements. Significant differences for humour appeals (Australia: 3.3%, n=1; Canada: 13.3%, n=4; USA: 26.7%, n=8; p=0.04), positive emotional appeals (Australia: 26.7%, n=8; Canada: 60.0%, n=18; USA: 50.0%, n=15; p=0.03), social approval portrayals (Australia: 0.0%, n=0; Canada: 0.0%, n=0; USA: 10.0%, n=3; p=0.04) and lifestyle or work portrayals (Australia: 43.3%, n=13; Canada: 50.0%, n=15; USA: 76.7%, n=23; p=0.02) were found among countries.ConclusionsDifferent regulatory systems influence journal advertisement quality concerning all measured domains. However, differences may also be attributed to other regulatory, legal, cultural or health system factors unique to each country.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%