Although pharmaceutical companies cannot make comparative claims in direct-to-consumer (DTC) ads for prescription drugs without substantial evidence, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration permits some comparisons based on labeled attributes of the drug, such as dosing. Researchers have examined comparative advertising for packaged goods; however, scant research has examined comparative DTC advertising. We conducted two studies to determine if comparative claims in DTC ads influence consumers' perceptions and recall of drug information. In Experiment 1, participants with osteoarthritis (n=1934) viewed a fictitious print or video DTC ad that had no comparative claim or made an efficacy comparison to a named or unnamed competitor. Participants who viewed print (but not video) ads with named competitors had greater efficacy and lower risk perceptions than participants who viewed unnamed competitor and noncomparative ads. In Experiment 2, participants with high cholesterol or high body mass index (n=5317) viewed a fictitious print or video DTC ad that had no comparative claim or made a comparison to a named or unnamed competitor. We varied the type of comparison (of indication, dosing, or mechanism of action) and whether the comparison was accompanied by a visual depiction. Participants who viewed print and video ads with named competitors had greater efficacy perceptions than participants who viewed unnamed competitor and noncomparative ads. Unlike Experiment 1, named competitors in print ads resulted in higher risk perceptions than unnamed competitors. In video ads, participants who saw an indication comparison had greater benefit recall than participants who saw dosing or mechanism of action comparisons. In addition, visual depictions of the comparison decreased risk recall for video ads. Overall, the results suggest that comparative claims in DTC ads could mislead consumers about a drug's efficacy and risk; therefore, caution should be used when presenting comparative claims in DTC ads.
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science
4
7%
Business, Management and Accounting
4
7%
Medicine and Dentistry
4
7%
Other
7
12%
Unknown
23
39%
Attention Score in Context
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 September 2022.
All research outputs
#6,753,656
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Social Science & Medicine
#6,237
of 11,875 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#60,966
of 247,676 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Social Science & Medicine
#75
of 125 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 73rd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,875 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 18.8. This one is in the 47th percentile – i.e., 47% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 247,676 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 125 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
