Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertising and Patient-Provider Interactions.

BACKGROUND: Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is prevalent and affects patient care. Previous research that examined its effect on the patient-provider relationship predates many changes in the advertising and medical landscape that have occurred in the last decade, such as the rise in online promotion and the push for value-based medicine. METHODS: We conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey of 1744 US adults in 2017 to explore how patients view the effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising on patient-provider interactions. RESULTS: Most respondents (76%) said they were likely to ask a health care provider about advertised drugs; 26% said they had already done so. Among the 26% of respondents who talked to a health care provider about a specific prescription drug they saw advertised, 16% said they received a prescription for the advertised drug. Few respondents (5%) reported that advertising had caused conflict with a health care provider, 16% said it had caused them to question their provider's advice, and 23% said they were likely to look for a different provider if their provider refused to prescribe a requested brand name drug. DISCUSSION: These results suggest that direct-to-consumer advertising is driving some patients to discuss specific products with their health care providers but that most patients do not believe advertising has a negative influence on the patient-provider interaction itself.

Consumer understanding of the scope of FDA's prescription drug regulatory oversight: A nationally representative survey.

PURPOSE: Misperceptions of how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates prescription drugs may affect how consumers assess the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs. The study objective was to survey the public on their knowledge of FDA oversight regarding prescription drug approval and advertising. METHODS: In 2017, we conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey with 1,744 US adults. RESULTS: Although most respondents (86%) knew that FDA approves prescription drugs, we found misperceptions about what that approval means. In addition, few respondents understood FDA oversight of prescription drug advertising, with approximately half of respondents reporting that they did not know whether FDA approved these ads or components of the ads, and several mis-reporting that FDA approves these ads (31%) or components of the ads (22%-41%). CONCLUSIONS: Enhanced collaboration and communication with the public by key stakeholders in this space could increase public understanding of the roles and responsibilities of FDA.

MyPreventiveCare: implementation and dissemination of an interactive preventive health record in three practice-based research networks serving disadvantaged patients--a randomized cluster trial.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based preventive services for early detection of cancer and other health conditions offer profound health benefits, yet Americans receive only half of indicated services. Policy initiatives promote the adoption of information technologies to engage patients in care. We developed a theory-driven interactive preventive health record (IPHR) to engage patients in health promotion. The model defines five levels of functionality: (1) collecting patient information, (2) integrating with electronic health records (EHRs), (3) translating information into lay language, (4) providing individualized, guideline-based clinical recommendations, and (5) facilitating patient action. It is hypothesized that personal health records (PHRs) with these higher levels of functionality will inform and activate patients in ways that simpler PHRs cannot. However, realizing this vision requires both technological advances and effective implementation based upon clinician and practice engagement. METHODS/DESIGN: We are starting a two-phase, mixed-method trial to evaluate whether the IPHR is scalable across a large number of practices and how its uptake differs for minority and disadvantaged patients. In phase 1, 40 practices from three practice-based research networks will be randomized to add IPHR functionality to their PHR versus continue to use their existing PHR. Throughout the study, we will engage intervention practices to locally tailor IPHR content and learn how to integrate new functions into their practice workflow. In phase 2, the IPHR to all nonintervention practices to observe whether the IPHR can be implemented more broadly (Scalability). Phase 1 will feature an implementation assessment in intervention practices, based on the RE-AIM model, to measure Reach (creation of IPHR accounts by patients), Adoption (practice decision to use the IPHR), Implementation (consistency, fidelity, barriers, and facilitators of use), and Maintenance (sustained use). The incremental effect of the IPHR on receipt of cancer screening tests and shared decision-making compared to traditional PHRs will assess Effectiveness. In phase 2, we will assess similar outcomes as phase 1 except for effectiveness. DISCUSSION: This study will yield information about the effectiveness of new health information technologies designed to actively engage patients in their care as well as information about how to effectively implement and disseminate PHRs by engaging clinicians. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02138448.