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.
Prescription Drug Advertisements, 21 CFR §202.1 (2012).
2.
AikinKJO’DonoghueACSwasyJLSullivanHW. Randomized trial of risk information formats in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. Med Decis Making. 2011;31
(6):e23–e33.
3.
MenonAMDeshpandeADPerriMIIIZinkanGM. 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.
4.
SchwartzLMWolshinS. The drug facts box: Improving the communication of prescription drug information. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2013;110:14069–14074.
5.
WoloshinSSchwartzLM. Getting to better prescription drug information. J Gen Intern Med. 2012;27:1582–1584.
6.
BhutadaNSDeshpandeADMenonAMPerriMIII. Consumers’ evaluations of brief summary formats of print direct-to-consumer advertisements. Int J Pharm Health Care Mark. 2013;7:296–312.
7.
DavisJJ. 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.
8.
DavisJJ. Consumers’ preference for the communication of risk information in drug advertising. Health Affair. 2007;26:863–870.
9.
Over-the-counter human drugs; labeling requirements. Fed Regist. 1999;64:13254–303. Codified at 21 CFR §201.66.
10.
VigilanteWJWogalterMS. The preferred order of over-the-counter (OTC) pharmaceutical label components. Drug Inf J. 1997;31:973–988.
11.
LevyASFeinSBSchuckerRE. More effective nutrition label formats are not necessarily more preferred. J Am Diet Assoc. 1992;92:1230–1234.
12.
LorchRLorchE. Effects of organizational signals on free recall of expository text. J Educ Psychol. 1996;88:38–48.
13.
FagerlinAUbelPASmithDMZikmund-FisherBJ. Making numbers matter: present and future research in risk communication. Am J Health Behav. 2007;31:S47–S56.
14.
LipkusI. Numeric, verbal, and visual formats of conveying health risks: suggested best practices and future recommendations. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:697–713.
15.
O’DonoghueACSullivanHWAikinKJChowdhuryDMoultrieRRRupertDJ. Presenting efficacy information in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;95:271–280.
16.
WoloshinSSchwartzLMWelchHG. The value of benefit data in direct-to-consumer drug ads. Health Aff. 2004;W4
(suppl):234–245.
17.
StaceyDBennettCLBarryMJ. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011;10:CD001431.
18.
TrevenaLJZikmund-FisherBJEdwardsA. 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.
19.
WestSLSquiersLBMcCormackL. Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2013;22:447–458.
20.
BerryDRaynorTKnappPBerselliniE. 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.
21.
TheilM. The role of translations of verbal into numerical probability expressions in risk management: a meta-analysis. J Risk Res. 2002;5:177–186.
22.
VisschersVHMeertensRMPasschierWWDe VriesNN. Probability information in risk communication: a review of the research literature. Risk Anal. 2009;29:267–287.
23.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSWelchHG. The drug facts box: providing consumers with simple tabular data on drug benefit and harm. Med Decis Making. 2007;27:655–662.
24.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSWelchHG. Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med. 2009;150:516–527.
25.
WoloshinSSchwartzLM. Communicating data about the benefits and harms of treatment: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:87–96.
26.
PetersE. Beyond comprehension: the role of numeracy in judgments and decision making. Curr Dir Pyschol Sci. 2012;21:31–35.
27.
WilsonEAHWolfMS. Working memory and the design of health materials: a cognitive factors perspective. Patient Educ Couns. 2009;74:318–322.
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.
29.
SchwartzLWoloshinSBlackWWelchHG. The role of numeracy in understanding the benefit of screening mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:966–972.
30.
HawleySTZikmund-FisherBUbelPJancovicALucasTFagerlinA. The impact of the format of graphical presentation on health-related knowledge and treatment choices. Patient Educ Couns. 2008;73:448–455.
