Explore the vast range of titles available.

Marijuana product advertising will become more common, as the use of medical and/or recreational marijuana becomes increasingly legal in the USA. In this study, we investigate the marketing tactics being used on marijuana dispensary websites in the USA that could influence substance use behaviors. One hundred dispensary websites were randomly selected from 10 states that allowed the legal use of medical or recreational marijuana and had at least 10 operational dispensaries. Three dispensaries were excluded due to non-functioning websites, leaving a sample of 97 dispensaries. Content analysis was conducted on these dispensaries’ websites, with the primary areas of focus including website age verification, marijuana effects, warnings, and promotional tactics. Among the 97 dispensaries, 75% did not include age verification. Roughly 30% offered online ordering and 21% offered delivery services. Sixty-seven percent made health claims pertaining to medical conditions that could be treated by their marijuana products, with moderate or conclusive evidence to support their claims. Less than half of the dispensaries (45%) advised consumers of possible side effects, and only 18% included warnings about contraindications. Nearly half (44%) offered reduced prices or coupons, 19% offered “buy one get one free” offers, and 16% provided giveaways or free samples. Our findings indicate that marijuana dispensary websites are easily accessible to youth. In addition, only a small amount of the websites advised consumers about possible side effects or contraindications. This study suggests the need for surveillance of marijuana commercialization and online advertising especially in the context of state policy reforms.

BackgroundDirect-to-consumer (DTC) advertisements for prescription drugs in the United States are regulated by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Off-label promotion, or the advertisement of a drug for an indication not approved by the FDA, is prohibited. Our objective was to examine the presence of off-label promotion in broadcast DTC ads and to assess their adherence to FDA guidelines mandating fair balance in presentation of risks and benefits and prohibiting misleading advertisement claims.MethodsAll English-language broadcast DTC ads for prescription drugs that aired in the United States from January 2015 to July 2016 were obtained from AdPharm, an online collection of healthcare advertisements. Ad length was measured and adherence to FDA guidelines was assessed for several categories: key regulatory items, indicators of false or misleading ads, and indicators of fair balance in presentation of risks and benefits.ResultsOur sample included 97 unique DTC ads, representing 60 unique drugs and 67 unique drug–indication combinations. No ads described drug risks quantitatively, whereas drug efficacy was presented quantitatively in 25 (26%) ads. Thirteen (13%) ads, all for diabetes medications, suggested off-label uses for weight loss and blood pressure reduction. The most commonly advertised drugs were indicated for the treatment of inflammatory conditions (n = 12; 18%), diabetes or diabetic neuropathy (n = 11; 16%), bowel or bladder dysfunction (n = 6; 9%), and infections or allergic reaction (n = 6; 9%). More than three-quarters (n = 51; 76%) advertised drugs to treat chronic conditions.ConclusionsFew broadcast DTC ads were fully compliant with FDA guidelines. The overall quality of information provided in ads was low, and suggestions of off-label promotion were common for diabetes medications. The impact of current DTC ads and off-label marketing on patient and prescriber decisions merits further scrutiny.

How often do we stop to recognize what pharmaceutical advertisements are telling us? Broadcast Pharmaceutical Advertising in the United States: Prime Time Pill Pushers engages with this question to include how pharmaceutical companies are shaping the meaning of drug interventions for individuals and the ways in which pharmaceutical advertisements frame issues of identity and representation for patients and health care. Such issues highlight how patients are being framed as consumers in these advertisements, which then permits the commodification of health care to be celebrated. Such a celebration has strong ideological implications, including definitions of “the good life,” patient agency, and the role of DTCAs in such depictions. By defining and discussing medicalization, pharmaceuticalization, and commodity fetishism, this book introduces how the term “pharmaceutical fetishism” can act as a means for describing the commodification of brand-name pharmaceutical drugs, which, via advertising and promotional culture, ignores large-scale production and for-profit motives of “big pharma.”

There are only two countries in the world (the United States and New Zealand) that allow the pharmaceutical branch to advertise prescription medication directly to consumers. There is pressure on governments to allow direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for prescription drugs elsewhere too. One argument the industry uses frequently is the claim that exposure to DCTA, through various methods and occasions, is supposed to improve customers' knowledge of a disease and treatment. This argument has been part of the health care community's wider discussion of whether DTCA of prescription drugs benefits the population's general interest or is only an attempt to increase the sales of the pharmaceutical branch. Belief in true learning by DTCA is rooted in concepts of empowered consumers and their autonomous and empowered decision-making. In this study, we tested the hypotheses that contact with DTCA increases recipients' literacy/knowledge, especially regarding the side effects of treatment (hypothesis 1), and empowerment (hypothesis 2). We further hypothesized that DTCA exposure would not increase depression knowledge (ie, about treatments, symptoms, and prevalence) (hypothesis 3). A snowball sample of 180 participants was randomly split into three experimental groups receiving (1) a traditional information sheet, (2) a DTCA video clip for an antidepressant prescription drug, or (3) both. The video was original material from the United States translated into Italian for the experiment. Dependent variables were measures of depression knowledge (regarding treatments, symptoms and prevalence, and antidepressant side effects), depression literacy, and empowerment. None of the experimental groups differed significantly from the others in the empowerment measure (hypothesis 2 not confirmed). Partial confirmation of hypothesis 1 was obtained. Lower values on the depression literacy scale were obtained when participants had been given the video compared to the sheet condition. However, the general depression knowledge and its subscale on side effects reached higher scores when participants were exposed to the DTCA, alone or in combination with the information sheet. Finally, participants showed lower scores on knowledge about treatment and symptoms or prevalence after watching the video compared to the sheet condition (hypothesis 3 confirmed). Symptoms and prevalence knowledge increased only when the video was presented in combination with the sheet. There is no evidence for an increase in empowerment following DTCA exposure. An increase in knowledge of the side effects of the medication was observed in the group exposed to the DTCA video. This was the only result that confirmed the hypothesis of the beneficial effect of DTCA videos on knowledge. Written information proved to be the most suitable way to convey knowledge on treatments and symptoms prevalence. Our findings support the necessity of studying health literacy and patient empowerment together and the consequences of such an increase in knowledge in terms of help-seeking behavior.

Direct-to-consumer (DTC) telemedicine is increasingly popular and enables patients to obtain medical advice and treatment via electronic media (e.g., computer, telephone, or smartphone) without a prior doctor-patient relationship. Convenience, accessibility, and home delivery make DTC telemedicine attractive to patients. Concerns about DTC telemedicine include: a lack of regulation, transparency, and an established patient-provider relationship (physician and pharmacist). In future, researchers, providers, and insurers need to better understand the concerns and challenges that this new form of healthcare poses.

Background Pharmaceutical marketing is undergoing a major shift in the United States, in part due to new transparency regulations under the healthcare reform act. Changes in pharmaceutical marketing practices include a possible shift from more traditional forms of direct-to-consumer advertising towards emerging use of Internet-based DTCA (“eDTCA”) given the growing importance of digital health or “eHealth.” Though legally allowed only in the U.S. and New Zealand, eDTCA poses novel regulatory challenges, as it can cross geopolitical boundaries and impact health systems and populations outside of these countries. Methods We wished to assess whether changes in DTCA and eDTCA expenditure trends was occurring using publicly available pharmaceutical marketing data. DTCA data was analyzed to compare trends in aggregate marketing expenditures and to assess if there were statistically significant differences in trends and magnitudes for data sources and DTCA sub-categories (including eDTCA). This was accomplished using regression lines of DTCA trend data and conducting pairwise comparisons of regression coefficients using t-tests. Means testing was utilized for comparing magnitude of DTCA expenditure. Results Data from multiple data sources indicate that aggregate DTCA expenditures have slightly declined during the period from 2005–2009 and are consistent with results from other studies. For DTCA sub-categories, television remained the most utilized form of DTCA, though experienced trends of declining expenditures (−13.2 %) similar to other traditional media platforms such as radio (−30.7 %) and outdoor ads (−12.1 %). The only DTCA sub-category that experienced substantial increased expenditures was eDTCA (+109.0 %) and it was the only medium that had statistically significant differences in its marketing expenditure trends compared to other DTCA sub-categories. Conclusions Our study indicates that traditional DTCA marketing may be on the decline. Conversely, the only DTCA sub-category that experienced significant increases was eDTCA. However, to fully understand this possible shift to “digital” DTCA, improvements in publicly available DTCA data sources are necessary to confirm changing trends and validate existing data. Hence, utilizing the newly implemented U.S. physician-payment expenditure transparency requirements, we advocate for the mandatory disclosure of DTCA/eDTCA in order to inform future domestic and international health policy efforts regarding appropriate regulation of pharmaceutical promotion.

It’s not hard to see why patients and the public, and their doctors, were tempted by Theranos, says Tessa Richards

Background Patient and public involvement in research (PPIR) may improve trial recruitment rates, but it is unclear how. Where trials use PPIR to improve design and conduct, many do not communicate this clearly to potential participants. Better communication of PPIR might encourage patient enrolment, as trials may be perceived as more socially valid, relevant and trustworthy. We aimed to evaluate the impact on recruitment of directly advertising PPIR to potential trial participants. Methods This is a cluster trial, embedded within a host trial (‘EQUIP’) recruiting service users diagnosed with severe mental illness. The intervention was informed by a systematic review, a qualitative study, social comparison theory and a stakeholder workshop including service users and carers. Adopting Participatory Design approaches, we co-designed the recruitment intervention with PPIR partners using a leaflet to advertise the PPIR in EQUIP and sent potential participants invitations with the leaflet (intervention group) or not (control group). Primary outcome was the proportion of patients enrolled in EQUIP. Secondary outcomes included the proportions of patients who positively responded to the trial invitation. Results Thirty-four community mental health teams were randomised and 8182 service users invited. For the primary outcome, 4% of patients in the PPIR group were enrolled versus 5.3% of the control group. The intervention was not effective for improving recruitment rates (adjusted OR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.07, p  = 0.113). For the secondary outcome of positive response, the intervention was not effective, with 7.3% of potential participants in the intervention group responding positively versus 7.9% of the control group (adjusted OR = 0.74, 95% CI = 0.53 to 1.04, p  = 0.082). We did not find a positive impact of directly advertising PPIR on any other outcomes. Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the largest ever embedded trial to evaluate a recruitment or PPIR intervention. Advertising PPIR did not improve enrolment rates or any other outcome. It is possible that rather than advertising PPIR being the means to improve recruitment, PPIR may have an alternative impact on trials by making them more attractive, acceptable and patient-centred. We discuss potential reasons for our findings and implications for recruitment practice and research. Trial registration numbers ISRCTN, ISRCTN16488358 . Registered on 14 May 2014. Study Within A Trial, SWAT-26 . Registered on 21 January 2016.

Many factors contribute to the inappropriate use of medicines, including not only a lack of information but also inaccurate and misleading promotional information. This review examines how the promotion of pharmaceuticals directly affects the prescribing and use of medicines. We define promotion broadly as all actions taken directly by pharmaceutical companies with the aim of enhancing product sales. We look in greater detail at promotion techniques aimed at prescribers, such as sales representatives, pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals and use of key opinion leaders, along with the quality of information provided and the effects thereof. We also discuss promotion to the public, through direct-to-consumer advertising, and its effects. Finally, we consider initiatives to regulate promotion that come from industry, government and nongovernmental organizations.