Trial reportJournal of health communication2016
Are Disease Awareness Links on Prescription Drug Websites Misleading? A Randomized Study.
Trial report in Journal of health communication, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing the Inclusion of Foil Items in a Scale to Measure Recognition of Health Messages.Communication methods and measures · 2021Article
- A Revised Model of Trust in Internet-Based Health Information and Advice: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2019Article
- Disease awareness campaigns in printed and online media in Latvia: cross-sectional study on consistency with WHO ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion and European standards.BMC public health · 2018Article
- Direct-to-Consumer Promotion of Prescription Drugs on Mobile Devices: Content Analysis.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Article
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
We sought to determine whether links from branded prescription drug websites to websites containing disease information mislead participants about drug benefits and whether nonsponsorship disclosures diminish this potential effect. We randomly assigned online panelists with depression (N = 1,071) to view a fictitious prescription drug website that had (a) no link to a disease information website (control), (b) a link with no disclosure, (c) a link with a simple nonsponsorship disclosure, or (d) a link with a detailed nonsponsorship disclosure. If participants in the link conditions did not click the link, they were returned to the drug website and encouraged to click it. All participants then completed an online questionnaire assessing recall, perceptions, and intentions. Few participants (12%) clicked the link without prompting; 67% did so when prompted. Compared with control participants, participants in link conditions were more likely to confuse disease information with drug benefits and to recall fewer true drug benefits. Disclosures did not diminish these effects, and exposure to disease information did not affect other perceptions or intentions. Consumers seem to confuse information on disease websites with information on branded prescription drug websites. Disclosures may not adequately help consumers to distinguish between the 2 types of information.
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.