↓ Skip to main content

Fair Balance and Adequate Provision in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Online Banner Advertisements: A Content Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Medical Internet Research, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (91st percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (63rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
4 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Readers on

mendeley
36 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Fair Balance and Adequate Provision in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Online Banner Advertisements: A Content Analysis
Published in
Journal of Medical Internet Research, February 2016
DOI 10.2196/jmir.5182
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

The current direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) guidelines were developed with print, television, and radio media in mind, and there are no specific guidelines for online banner advertisements. This study evaluates how well Internet banner ads comply with existing Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines for DTCA in other media. A content analysis was performed of 68 banner advertisements. A coding sheet was developed based on (1) FDA guidance documents for consumer-directed prescription drug advertisements and (2) previous DTCA content analyses. Specifically, the presence of a brief summary detailing the drug's risks and side effects or of a "major statement" identifying the drug's major risks, and the number and type of provisions made available to consumers for comprehensive information about the drug were coded. In addition, the criterion of "fair balance," the FDA's requirement that prescription drug ads balance information relating to the drug's risks with information relating to its benefits, was measured by numbering the benefit and risk facts identified in the ads and by examining the presentation of risk and benefit information. Every ad in the sample included a brief summary of risk information and at least one form of adequate provision as required by the FDA for broadcast ads that do not give audiences a brief summary of a drug's risks. No ads included a major statement. There were approximately 7.18 risk facts for every benefit fact. Most of the risks (98.85%, 1292/1307) were presented in the scroll portion of the ad, whereas most of the benefits (66.5%, 121/182) were presented in the main part of the ad. Out of 1307 risk facts, 1292 were qualitative and 15 were quantitative. Out of 182 benefit facts, 181 were qualitative and 1 was quantitative. The majority of ads showed neutral images during the disclosure of benefit and risk facts. Only 9% (6/68) of the ads displayed positive images and none displayed negative images when presenting risks facts. When benefit facts were being presented, 7% (5/68) showed only positive images. No ads showed negative images when the benefit facts were being presented. In the face of ambiguous regulatory guidelines for online banner promotion, drug companies appear to make an attempt to adapt to regulatory guidelines designed for traditional media. However, banner ads use various techniques of presentation to present the advertised drug in the best possible light. The FDA should formalize requirements that drug companies provide a brief summary and include multiple forms of adequate provision in banner ads.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 36 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 19%
Student > Master 4 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 8%
Student > Bachelor 3 8%
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 8%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 5 14%
Social Sciences 4 11%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 3 8%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Other 7 19%
Unknown 12 33%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. 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 10 September 2025.
All research outputs
#1,965,359
of 29,269,793 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#1,496
of 9,511 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#27,711
of 318,621 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Medical Internet Research
#25
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 29,269,793 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 9,511 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
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 318,621 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 63% of its contemporaries.