An Empirical Examination of the FDAAA-Mandated Toll-Free Statement for Consumer Reporting of Side Effects in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online April, 2016
An Empirical Examination of the FDAAA-Mandated Toll-Free Statement for Consumer Reporting of Side Effects in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements
This research investigates how the inclusion of the “toll-free statement” (a message about a toll-free number by which consumers can report drug side effects to the U. S. Food and Drug Administration) in direct-to-consumer (DTC) television advertisements for prescription drugs affects consumers’ comprehension of product risks and benefits, as well as their comprehension and memory of the toll-free statement. Participants viewed one of nine mock television advertisements across which elements of the toll-free statement varied. Presenting the statement in both text and audio resulted in better processing of the statement than text-only presentations. When the statement was shown in text alone, presenting it during the entire advertisement or after the statement of risks resulted in better processing than a placement before the risk information. The placement, duration, and prominence of the statement did not affect risk or benefit comprehension. These findings suggest that the toll-free statement can be added to DTC television advertisements without significantly affecting risk and benefit comprehension and that certain presentations are preferable for communicating the statement. The appropriate inclusion of the toll-free statement in DTC television advertisements may increase the visibility of the adverse event reporting system, without cost to the understanding of benefits or risks.
AikinKathryn J., O'DonoghueAmie C., SullivanHelen W., BeltsKevin R., and SquireClaudia (2016), “Who Said It Better? A Test of Wording Differences in the MedWatch ‘Toll-Free Statement’ for Consumer Reporting of Side Effects in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements,”Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 50(2), 169–73.
2.
AikinKathryn J., O'DonoghueAmie C., SwasyJohn L., and SullivanHelen W. (2011), “Randomized Trial of Risk Information Formats in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements,”Medical Decision Making, 31, E23–33.
3.
AndersonSimon P., CilibertoFrederico, and LiaukonyteJura (2013), “Information Content of Advertising: Empirical Evidence from the OTC Analgesic Industry,”International Journal of Industrial Organization, 31(5), 355–67.
4.
ArneyJennifer, StreetRichard L., and NaikAanand D. (2013), “Consumers’ Various and Surprising Responses to Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements in Magazine Print,”Patient Preference and Adherence, 7, 95–102.
5.
AtkinsonRichard C., and ShiffrinRichard M. (1968), “Human Memory: A Proposed System and Its Control Processes,” in The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, Vol. 2, SpenceK.W., and SpenceJ.T., eds. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 89–195.
6.
AtkinsonRichard C., and ShiffrinRichard M. (1971), “The Control of Short-Term Memory,”Scientific American, 225(2), 82–90.
7.
MartinBland J., and AltmanDouglas G. (1997), “Statistics Notes: Cronbach's Alpha,”British Medical Journal, 314, 572.
8.
BuchholzLaura M., and SmithRobert E. (1991), “The Role of Consumer Involvement in Determining Cognitive Response to Broadcast Advertising,”Journal of Advertising, 20(1), 4–17.
9.
CharltonSamuel G. (2009), “Driving While Conversing: Cell Phones That Distract and Passengers Who React,”Accident Analysis and Prevention, 41, 160–73.
10.
Code of Federal Regulations (2014a), 21 CFR 310.305 (drugs); 21 CFR 600.80 (biologics); 21 CFR 803 (devices).
11.
Code of Federal Regulations (2014b), 21 CFR 202.1(e)(6).
12.
PanDal, GeraldJ. (2014), “Ongoing Challenges in Pharmacovigilance,”Drug Safety, 37(1), 1–8.
13.
DuDongyi “Tony”, GoldsmithJohn, AikinKathryn J., EncinosaWilliam E., and NardinelliClark (2012), “Despite 2007 Law Requiring FDA Hotline to Be Included in Print Drug Ads, Reporting of Adverse Events by Consumers Still Low,”Health Affairs, 31(5), 1022–29.
14.
Federal Trade Commission (1970), “Statement of Enforcement Policy: Clear and Conspicuous Disclosures in Television Advertising,”Trade Regulation Reporter (CCH) (October 21), para. 7569.09.
Food and Drug Administration (2008), “Toll-Free Number for Reporting Adverse Events on Labeling for Human Drug Products: Final Rule,” 73 FR 209, 63886–987.
18.
Food and Drug Administration (2010), “Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements; Presentation of the Major Statement in Television and Radio Advertisements in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner,” 75 FR 59, 15376–87.
19.
Food and Drug Administration (2014a), “MedWatch: The FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting Program,” (accessed October 6, 2014), [available at http://www.fda.gov/safety/medwatch/default.htm].
Food and Drug Administration (2015b), “FAERS Reporting by Health Care Providers and Consumers by Year,” Unpublished data.
23.
FroschDominick L., KruegerPatrick M., HornikRobert C, CronholmPeter F., and BargFrances K. (2007), “Creating Demand for Prescription Drugs: A Content Analysis of Television Direct-to-Consumer Advertising,”Annals of Family Medicine, 5(1), 6–13.
24.
GilbertDaniel T., and Gregory HixonJ. (1991), “The Trouble of Thinking: Activation and Application of Stereotypic Beliefs,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60(4), 509–17.
25.
GreenwaldAnthony G., and LeavittClark (1984), “Audience Involvement in Advertising: Four Levels,”Journal of Consumer Research, 11(1), 581–92.
26.
HintzmanDouglas L. (2010), “How Does Repetition Affect Memory? Evidence from Judgments of Recency,”Memory & Cognition, 38(1), 102–15.
27.
HurdMichael D., and KapteynArie (2000), “Anchoring and Acquiescence Bias in Measuring Assets in Household Surveys,” in Elicitation of Preferences, FischhoffBaruch, and ManskiCharles F., eds. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
28.
JacobyJacob (1984), “Perspectives on Information Overload,”Journal of Consumer Research, 10(4), 432–35.
29.
JacobyLarry L., and WahlheimChristopher N. (2013), “On the Importance of Looking Back: The Role of Recursive Remindings in Recency Judgments and Cued Recall,”Memory & Cognition, 41, 625–37.
30.
KesslerDavid A. (1993), “Introducing MEDWatch: A New Approach to Reporting Medication and Device Adverse Effects and Product Problems,”Journal of the American Medical Association, 21(269), 2765–68.
31.
KnowlesEric S., and CondonChristopher A. (1999), “Why People Say ‘Yes': A Dual-Process Theory of Acquiescence,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 11 (2), 379–86.
32.
LeggettChristopher G., KlecknerNaomi S., BoyleKevin J., DufieldJohn W., and MitchellRobert Cameron (2003), “Social Desirability Bias in Contingent Valuation Surveys Administered Through In-Person Interviews,”Land Economics, 79(4), 561–75.
33.
LiangBryan A., and MackeyTim (2011), “Reforming Direct-to-Consumer Advertising,”Nature Biotechnology, 29(5), 397–400.
34.
McLeanRachael, HoekJanet, and HedderleyDuncan (2012), “Effects of Alternative Label Formats on Choice of High- and Low-Sodium Products in a New Zealand Population Sample,”Public Health Nutrition, 15(5), 783–91.
35.
MorrisLouis A., MazisMichael B., and BrinbergDavid (1989), “Risk Disclosures in Televised Prescription Drug Advertising to Consumers,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 8, 64–80.
36.
MurrayNoel M., ManraiLalita A., and ManraiAjay K. (1998), “How Super Are Video Supers? A Test of Communication Efficacy,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 17(Spring), 24–34.
37.
O'DonoghueAmie C., SullivanHelen W., AikinKathryn J., ChowdhuryDhuly, MoultrieRebecca R., and RupertDouglas J. (2014), “Presenting Efficacy Information in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements,”Patient Education and Counseling, 95, 271–80.
38.
PashlerHarold (1994), “Dual-Task Interference in Simple Tasks: Data and Theory,”Psychological Bulletin, 116(2), 220–44.
PietersRik, WedelMichel, and ZhangJie (2007), “Optimal Feature Advertising Design Under Competitive Clutter,”Management Science, 53(11), 1815–28.
42.
RuckerDerek D., and PettyRichard E. (2006), “Increasing the Effectiveness of Communications to Consumers: Recommendations Based on Elaboration Likelihood and Attitude Certainty Perspectives,”Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 25(Spring), 39–52.
43.
StewartDennis D., StewartCheryl B., TysonClare, VinciGail, and FiotiTom (2004), “Serial Position Effects and the Picture-Superiority Effect in the Group Recall of Unshared Information,”Group Dynamics, 8(3), 166–81.
44.
SwellerJohn (1988), “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning,”Cognitive Science, 12(2), 257–85.
45.
TanLydia, and WardGeoff (2000), “A Recency-Based Account of the Primacy Effect in Free Recall,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26(6), 1589–625.
46.
TraxlerMatthew J. (2008), “Lexically Independent Priming in Online Sentence Comprehension,”Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 15(1), 149–55.
47.
Van GrootheestKees, de GraafLinda, and de Jong-van den BergLolkje T.W. (2003), “Consumer Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting: A New Step in Pharmacovigilance?”Drug Safety, 26(4), 211–17.
48.
Van GrootheestKees, and de Jong-van den BergLolkje T.W. (2004), “Patients’ Role in Reporting Adverse Drug Reactions,”Expert Opinion on Drug Safety, 3(4), 363–68.
49.
WaughNancy C., and NormanDonald A. (1965), “Primary Memory,”Psychological Review, 72, 89–104.
50.
WogalterMichael S., ShaverErik F., and KalsherMichael J. (2014), “Effect of Presentation Modality in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) Prescription Drug Television Advertisements,”Applied Ergonomics, 45(5), 1330–36.
51.
WoloshinSteven, SchwartzLisa M., and WelchGilbert H. (2009), “Using a Drug Facts Box to Communicate Drug Benefits and Harms: Two Randomized Trials,”Annals of Internal Medicine, 150, 516–27.
