ArticlePatient preference and adherence2013
Consumers' various and surprising responses to direct-to-consumer advertisements in magazine print.
Article in Patient preference and adherence, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Diabetes Health Literacy, Drug Adherence and Factors Associated with Them among Urban Patients in Kerala, India.Journal of postgraduate medicine education and research : the official journal of Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research, Chandigarh, India · 2023Article
- Characterization of medication advertisements in a popular US parenting magazine.Health promotion perspectives · 2017Article
- An Empirical Examination of the FDAAA-Mandated "Toll-Free Statement" for Consumer Reporting of Side Effects in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements.Journal of public policy & marketing : JPP&M : an annual publication of the Division of Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, the University of Michigan · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) is ubiquitous in media outlets, but little is known about the ways in which consumers' values, needs, beliefs, and biases influence the perceived meaning and value of DTCA. This article aims to identify the taxonomy of readership categories that reflect the complexity of how health care consumers interact with DTCA, with particular focus on individuals' perceptions of print DTCA in popular magazines. Respondent-driven sampling was used to recruit 18 male and female magazine readers and 18 male and female prescription medication users aged 18-71 years. Semi-structured, in-depth interviews with consumers about their attentiveness, motivations, perceived value, and behavioral responses to DTCA were conducted. The analyses were guided by principles of grounded theory analysis; four categories that vary in consumers' attentiveness, motivations, perceived value, and behavioral responses to DTCA were identified. Two categories - the lay physician and the informed shopper - see value in information from DTCA and are likely to seek medical care based on the information. One category - the voyeur - reads DTCA, but is not likely to approach a clinician regarding advertised information. The fourth category - the evader - ignores DTCA and is not likely to approach a clinician with DTCA information. Responses to DTCA vary considerably among consumers, and physicians should view patients' understanding and response to DTCA within the context of their health-related needs. Patients' comments related to DTCA may be used as an opportunity to engage and understand patients' perspectives about illness and medication use. Clinicians may use information about these categories to facilitate shared understanding and improve communication within the doctor-patient relationship.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.