ArticleJournal of health communication2015
Awareness of the Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad Program and Education Regarding Pharmaceutical Advertising: A National Survey of Prescribers in Ambulatory Care Settings.
Article in Journal of health communication, 2015. 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.
- Detecting and Reporting Deceptive Prescription Drug Promotion: Differences Across Consumer and Physician Audiences and by Number and Type of Deceptive Claims and Tactics.Health communication · 2022Article
- Consumer understanding of the scope of FDA's prescription drug regulatory oversight: A nationally representative survey.Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety · 2020Article
- A follow-up study on the effects of an educational intervention against pharmaceutical promotion.PloS one · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad program educates health care professionals about false or misleading advertising and marketing and provides a pathway to report suspect materials. To assess familiarity with this program and the extent of training about pharmaceutical marketing, a sample of 2,008 health care professionals, weighted to be nationally representative, responded to an online survey. Approximately equal numbers of primary care physicians, specialists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners answered questions concerning Bad Ad program awareness and its usefulness, as well as their likelihood of reporting false or misleading advertising, confidence in identifying such advertising, and training about pharmaceutical marketing. Results showed that fewer than a quarter reported any awareness of the Bad Ad program. Nonetheless, a substantial percentage (43%) thought it seemed useful and 50% reported being at least somewhat likely to report false or misleading advertising in the future. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants expressed more openness to the program and reported receiving more training about pharmaceutical marketing. Bad Ad program awareness is low, but opportunity exists to solicit assistance from health care professionals and to help health care professionals recognize false and misleading advertising. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are perhaps the most likely contributors to the program.
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.