Message Framing Strategies to Promote the Uptake of PrEP: Results from Formative Research with Diverse Adult Populations in the United States.

There are no evidence-based recommendations for communicating about pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) as part of a broader HIV-prevention messaging approach. To inform future message development related to PrEP uptake, we interviewed 235 individuals across ten locations in the U.S. to explore their understanding and perceptions of draft HIV prevention messages and assess their overall preferences for a broad or PrEP-focused messaging approach. Participants responded favorably to and related to both draft messages. Participants who were not aware of PrEP were more likely to say the broad HIV-prevention message was personally relevant than those aware of PrEP. There were no significant differences in perceived personal relevance for the PrEP-focused message. Qualitative findings suggest that HIV prevention messages should use specific well-defined terms, include links to additional information, and use choice-enhancing language that emphasizes personal agency and frames the call to action as an informed decision among an array of effective prevention options.

RESUMEN: No existen recommendaciones basadas en evidencia para comunicar sobre la profilaxis prexposición (PrEP) como parte de un efoque más amplio de mensajes de prevención del VIH. Para informar el desarrollo de mansajes relacionados con el consumo de la PrEP, entrevistamos a 235 personas en 10 ubicaciones en los EE.UU. para explorar su comprensión y percepciones de los borradores de mensajes de prevención del VIH y evaluar sus preferencias generales por un enfoque de mensajeria amplio o centrado en la PrEP. Los participantes respondieron favorablemente y relacionadoscon ambos barradores de mensajes. Los participantes que no conocían la PrEP tenían más probabilidades de decir que el mansaje general de prevención amplia de VIH era personalmente relevent que aquellos que conocían la PrEP. No existe differencias significativas en la relevancia personal percibida para el mensaje centrado en la PrEP. Los hallazgos cualitativos sugieren que los mensajes de prevención del VIH deben utilizar términos especificos bien definidos, incluir enlaces a información adicional y utilizar un lenguaje que mejore las opciones, que enfatice la agencia personal y enmarque el llamado a la acción como una decisión informada entre una variedad de opciones de prevención efectivas.

Implied Claims in Drug Advertising: A Review of Recent Literature and Regulatory Actions.

Federal agencies and self-regulatory bodies help to ensure prescription and nonprescription drug promotion contains accurate information; however, false or misleading claims may cause people to have inaccurate perceptions of a drug and inhibit their ability to make informed decisions. We conducted a systematic review assessing evidence from 2012-2021 on how consumers and healthcare providers (HCPs) interpret claims made indirectly or through inference (implied or implicit claims) as well as synthesizing prescription and nonprescription drug advertising claims that have been the subject of regulatory actions from 2017-2021. Our search identified 16 studies from the peer-reviewed literature and 26 letters or case reports issued by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or National Advertising Division (NAD). Results from peer-reviewed studies suggest that implied claims can result in inferences that may not be warranted by the material facts about the drug. Perceptions of a drug's efficacy and, to a lesser extent, risk, are influenced by implied and explicitly false claims in prescription drug promotion. Claims related to implied superiority and overstatement of efficacy were the most prevalent claims flagged for review and examined in the literature. These types of claims were also the subject of many of the compliance actions by the FDA and case reports from the NAD. More research is needed to understand how people interpret varying types of implied claims and the impact of such claims on key outcomes. From a policy standpoint, understanding how people interpret implied claims can inform how the FDA approaches these claims in the marketplace.

Patient Understanding of Oncology Clinical Trial Endpoints in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertising.

BACKGROUND: This study examined how people interpret overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS) endpoints in the context of direct-to-consumer television ads. Although there is little research on this topic, initial evidence suggests that people can misinterpret these endpoints. We hypothesized that understanding of ORR and PFS would be improved by adding a disclosure ("We currently do not know if [Drug] helps patients live longer") to ORR and PFS claims. METHODS: We conducted 2 online studies with US adults examining television ads for fictional prescription drugs indicated to treat lung cancer (N = 385) or multiple myeloma (N = 406). The ads included claims about OS, ORR with and without a disclosure, or PFS with and without a disclosure. In each experiment, we randomized participants to view 1 of 5 versions of a television ad. After viewing the ad twice, participants completed a questionnaire that measured understanding, perceptions, and other outcomes. RESULTS: In both studies, participants correctly differentiated between OS, ORR, and PFS via open-ended responses; however, participants in the PFS conditions (versus ORR conditions) were more likely to make incorrect inferences about OS. Supporting the hypothesis, adding a disclosure made expectations around living longer and quality-of-life improvements more accurate. CONCLUSION: Disclosures could help reduce the extent to which people misinterpret endpoints like ORR and PFS. More research is needed to establish best-practice recommendations for using disclosures to improve patient understanding of drug efficacy without changing their perception of the drug in unintended ways.

Physician Perceptions of the FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation: An Update.

The US Food and Drug Administration developed the Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite the development and review of drugs that show a clear advantage over available therapy for serious conditions. Prior research has shown that physicians tend to misunderstand that a drug may receive a Breakthrough Therapy designation based on preliminary clinical evidence (eg, effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is likely to predict clinical benefit). The objective of this article is to examine whether physicians' familiarity with and interpretation of the Breakthrough Therapy designation have changed since a survey on the topic was published in 2016. We replicated three of the questions in that study and explored beliefs that a Breakthrough Therapy designation automatically qualifies a drug for accelerated approval. We also draw comparisons by specialization (oncologists vs. primary care physicians). In general, physicians remain more likely than not to misunderstand the Breakthrough Therapy designation.

Detecting and Reporting Deceptive Prescription Drug Promotion: Differences Across Consumer and Physician Audiences and by Number and Type of Deceptive Claims and Tactics.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Bad Ad program provides an avenue for healthcare providers to report false or misleading prescription drug promotion. Yet, whether healthcare providers can detect such promotion, and whether they believe it should be reported to FDA, remain open questions. Consumer audiences may also be capable of detecting such promotion and believe it should be reported, but even less is known about capability and belief in this population. Across two experiments using mock pharmaceutical websites, this research investigated capability to detect and inclination to report deceptive prescription drug promotion among a sample of primary care physicians and consumers. Study 1 varied the number of deceptive claims and tactics on a website for a chronic pain medication, operationalized as none, two, or five. Study 2 varied the type of deceptive content on a website for a weight loss medication, operationalized as none, implicit, or explicit. Findings reveal that, in line with expectations from FDA's Bad Ad program, physicians can detect deceptive promotion and tend to believe it should be reported. Consumers are also capable of detecting deceptive promotion and tend to believe it should be reported, but their capabilities and beliefs regarding reporting are generally lower.

Physician Interpretation of Data of Uncertain Clinical Utility in Oncology Prescription Drug Promotion.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about how physicians interpret data displays that depict preliminary or exploratory clinical data in physician-targeted sales aids for oncology drugs. Using three factorial experiments, we examined whether disclosures of data limitations and clinical uncertainty adequately communicate the limitations and practical utility of this type of data. SUBJECTS, MATERIALS, AND METHODS: The studies used a 2 (disclosure of data limitations: technical, nontechnical) × 2 (disclosure of clinical uncertainty: present, absent) + 1 (control: no disclosure) between-subjects experimental design to examine the impact of disclosures as they relate to presentations of preliminary or exploratory data in promotional communications for oncology products. In each experiment, we randomized oncologists and primary care physicians with oncology experience to view one version of a two-page sales aid. Following this exposure, physicians completed a web-based survey. The design was replicated in three concurrently conducted experiments using sales aids for different fictitious oncology drugs, each featuring one of three common data displays: a forest plot (n = 495), a Kaplan-Meier curve (n = 504), or a bar chart (n = 532). RESULTS: Results provide initial evidence that in some contexts disclosures can improve understanding of the clinical utility of certain information about a drug and the limitations of results presented in a data display. Disclosures can also temper perceptions of how much evidence is presented that supports a conclusion that the drug is an appropriate treatment. In terms of the language used in the disclosure of data limitations, physicians in all three experiments strongly preferred the nontechnical disclosures. CONCLUSION: The findings from the three experiments in this study suggest that disclosures have the potential to increase relevant knowledge, but more research is needed to establish best practice recommendations for using disclosures to convey contextual information relevant for interpreting data displays in promotional communications. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This article reports the results from three large, online experimental studies that address a growing concern that drug companies often share favorable clinical trial results with physicians in promotional materials that lack important context for physicians to interpret the data. This series of studies investigates whether strategic use of two types of disclosures (disclosure of data limitations and a disclosure of clinical uncertainty) improves understanding and reduces misinterpretations among physicians. The results from these studies help identify communication factors that impact how physicians critically appraise preliminary or exploratory clinical trial data to inform policy and regulatory efforts.

Patients' Understanding of Oncology Clinical Endpoints: Environmental Scan and Focus Groups.

BACKGROUND: Understanding treatment options is important for patients with cancer and their caregivers. This may be difficult, however, because oncology treatments are often approved based on complex clinical endpoints. The study aimed to explore lay understanding of oncology clinical endpoints by assessing the definitions of clinical endpoints available online and gathering qualitative focus group data on cancer survivors' and the general public's understanding of clinical endpoints. METHODS: We conducted an environmental scan to find Web sites accessible by a general audience that defined three clinical endpoints: overall survival, progression-free survival, and response rate. Next, we conducted a series of eight focus groups across the U.S. with cancer survivors (n = 36) and general population adults (n = 36). RESULTS: We found several online resources defining each endpoint; however, many of the definitions we identified used technical language that may not be easily understood by patients and caregivers. Few focus group participants were familiar with the technical terms for these endpoints. When presented with the endpoint terms and definitions, participants had misconceptions about treatment efficacy. Specifically, they tended to expect that all endpoints were a variation on living longer. CONCLUSION: The results point to the need for more patient-friendly definitions of clinical endpoints developed with input from the general public and from patients with cancer. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: As the number of oncology prescription drug approvals and the advertising of those drugs to consumers increase, it is timely and critical to understand how to discuss treatment benefits with patients. Patient-friendly definitions of common clinical endpoints, such as overall survival and progression-free survival, would help health care providers describe treatment benefits to patients. This research provides evidence regarding patients' understanding of these endpoints and suggests definitions for additional research. This represents a first step in creating evidence-based patient-friendly language to describe clinical endpoints.

Individual- and Ad-Level Predictors of Perceptions of Serious and Actionable Risks in Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug TV Advertising.

Prescription drug broadcast advertisements in the United States are required to present the product's major risks in at least the audio portion of the ad (21 CFR 202.1(e)(1)). This can result in a lengthy list of risks and side effects. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been studying the effects of limiting the major statement to those risks that are serious and actionable. We explore the level of agreement between consumers and experts regarding what risks and side effects are serious and actionable, and how variations in the content of major risk statement as well as other factors such as demographic variables, perceived accuracy of direct-to-consumer advertising, illness knowledge, and knowledge of prescription drug regulations, predict perceptions of risk and actionability. Participants (N = 1,000) self-diagnosed with depression or insomnia were randomly assigned to view a television ad for their respective condition that presented the full major statement or an edited version that included only serious and actionable risks. Results indicated consumers' perceptions of risk severity generally matched experts' assessment, but there was relatively less agreement about risk actionability. Results also varied as a function of income and gender.

An Interrupted Time Series Evaluation of the Testing Makes Us Stronger HIV Campaign for Black Gay and Bisexual Men in the United States.

Black gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (BMSM) are the subpopulation most disproportionately affected by HIV in the United States. Testing Makes Us Stronger (TMUS), a communication campaign designed to increase HIV testing rates among BMSM ages 18 to 44, was implemented in the United States from December 2011 through September 2015. We used interrupted time series analysis (ITSA) to compare pre- and post-campaign trends in monthly HIV testing events among the priority audience in six of the implementation cities from January 2011 through December 2014. In the 11 months prior to the launch of TMUS, HIV testing events among BMSM in the six campaign implementation cities decreased by nearly 35 tests per month (p = .021). After the introduction of TMUS, the number of HIV testing events among BMSM in the same cities increased by more than 6 tests per month (p = .002). ITSA represents a quasi-experimental technique for investigating campaign effects beyond underlying time trends when serial outcome data are available. Future evaluations can be further strengthened by incorporating a comparison group to account for the effects of history and maturation on pre- and post-campaign trends.

Relationships Between Theoretically Derived Short-Term Outcomes and Support for Policy Among the Public and Decision-Makers.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES: Policy change is a lengthy and complex process. Thus, it is important to articulate hypothesized causal pathways between advocacy activities and policy change outcomes and to identify and monitor early indicators of progress toward policy change. INTERVENTION APPROACH: The Kansas Health Foundation supports grantee efforts to address the public health effects of obesity through evidence-based policy, systems, and environmental change interventions. To build support for policy, systems, and environmental changes in schools, workplaces, and health care and retail settings, grantees mobilize communities, educate government policy makers, and advocate with organizational decision makers. EVALUATION METHODS: To understand whether early outcomes from obesity-prevention advocacy efforts predict interim outcomes related to eventual policy change, we conducted surveys of the general public and of opinion leaders in Kansas, which were designed to measure components of Kansas Health Foundation's theory of change. We then used structural equation modeling to test the theory of change's underlying relationships by using support for obesity prevention policies as the outcome. RESULTS: Our findings supported the hypothesized model: perceptions of obesity as a serious community problem influence beliefs about causes of the problem. Beliefs about causes predict beliefs about who is responsible for the solution to the problem, which in turn predicts support for obesity prevention policies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PUBLIC HEALTH: Evaluators of advocacy for policy change interventions can use this approach to monitor proximal changes in public and opinion leader beliefs related to eventual policy change and to determine whether efforts are likely to be successful or need to be adapted or abandoned.

Stigma's Effect on Social Interaction and Social Media Activity.

Stigmatized topics, such as HIV/STD, likely constrain related information sharing in ways that should be apparent in social interactions both on and off the Internet. Specifically, the authors predicted that the more people perceive an issue as stigmatized, the less likely they are to talk about the issue both privately (with sexual partners and peers) and publicly (on Twitter). Study 1 tested the effect of stigma on conversations at the individual level: The authors asked a group of participants (N = 138) about perceived STD-testing stigma, interactions with a sexual partner, and conversations with peers about STD testing. Study 2 assessed whether health conditions, in the aggregate, were less likely to generate social media activity as a function of current stigmatization. Using 259,758 archived Twitter posts mentioning 13 medical conditions, the authors tested whether level of stigma predicted the volume of relevant social media conversation, controlling for each condition's amount of advocacy and Google search popularity from a user's perspective. Findings supported our hypotheses. Individuals who reported perceiving a given health conditions in more stigmatic ways also reported interacting less with others about that topic; Twitter results showed a similar pattern. Results also suggest a more complex story of influence, as funding from the National Institutes of Health (i.e., each conditions amount of advocacy) associated with the examined health conditions also predicted Twitter activity. Overall, these results indicated that stigma had a similar, dampening effect on face-to-face and Twitter interactions. Findings hold theoretical and practical implications, which are discussed.

Awareness of the Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad Program and Education Regarding Pharmaceutical Advertising: A National Survey of Prescribers in Ambulatory Care Settings.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad program educates health care professionals about false or misleading advertising and marketing and provides a pathway to report suspect materials. To assess familiarity with this program and the extent of training about pharmaceutical marketing, a sample of 2,008 health care professionals, weighted to be nationally representative, responded to an online survey. Approximately equal numbers of primary care physicians, specialists, physician assistants, and nurse practitioners answered questions concerning Bad Ad program awareness and its usefulness, as well as their likelihood of reporting false or misleading advertising, confidence in identifying such advertising, and training about pharmaceutical marketing. Results showed that fewer than a quarter reported any awareness of the Bad Ad program. Nonetheless, a substantial percentage (43%) thought it seemed useful and 50% reported being at least somewhat likely to report false or misleading advertising in the future. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants expressed more openness to the program and reported receiving more training about pharmaceutical marketing. Bad Ad program awareness is low, but opportunity exists to solicit assistance from health care professionals and to help health care professionals recognize false and misleading advertising. Nurse practitioners and physician assistants are perhaps the most likely contributors to the program.

Communicating quantitative risks and benefits in promotional prescription drug labeling or print advertising.

PURPOSE: Under the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, all promotional materials for prescription drugs must strike a fair balance in presentation of risks and benefits. How to best present this information is not clear. We sought to determine if the presentation of quantitative risk and benefit information in drug advertising and labeling influences consumers', patients', and clinicians' information processing, knowledge, and behavior by assessing available empirical evidence. METHODS: We used PubMed for a literature search, limiting to articles published in English from 1990 forward. Two reviewers independently reviewed the titles and abstracts for inclusion, after which we reviewed the full texts to determine if they communicated risk/benefit information either: (i) numerically (e.g., percent) versus non-numerically (e.g., using text such as "increased risk") or (ii) numerically using different formats (e.g., "25% of patients", "one in four patients", or use of pictographs). We abstracted information from included articles into standardized evidence tables. The research team identified a total of 674 relevant publications, of which 52 met our inclusion criteria. Of these, 37 focused on drugs. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Presenting numeric information appears to improve understanding of risks and benefits relative to non-numeric presentation; presenting both numeric and non-numeric information when possible may be best practice. No single specific format or graphical approach emerged as consistently superior. Numeracy and health literacy also deserve more empirical attention as moderators.

The health literacy skills framework.

Although there are a variety of models and frameworks that describe factors that are associated with health literacy skills, few illustrate the full pathway from development and moderators of health literacy skills, their application, and the outcomes that result all in one framework or model. This article introduces the Health Literacy Skills conceptual framework that does encompass this full continuum. To develop the framework, the authors reviewed and built upon existing health literacy frameworks. The Health Literacy Skills framework hypothesizes the relations between health literacy and health-related outcomes and depicts how health literacy functions at the level of the individual. The framework also reflects how factors external to the individual (e.g., family, setting, community, culture, and media) influence the constructs and relations represented in the framework. The framework is organized into 4 primary components: (a) factors that influence the development and use of health literacy skills; (b) health-related stimuli; (c) health literacy skills needed to comprehend the stimulus and perform the task; and (d) mediators between health literacy and health outcomes. Previous theoretical frameworks lend support to the proposed causal pathways it illustrates. The authors hope this conceptual framework can serve as a springboard for further discussion and advancement in operationalizing this complex construct. The Health Literacy Skills framework could also be used to guide the development of interventions to improve health literacy. Future research should be conducted to fully test the relations in the framework.

Effects of additional context information in prescription drug information sheets on comprehension and risk and efficacy perceptions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine how additional explanatory text (context) about drug side effects in a patient medication information handout affected comprehension and perceptions of risk and efficacy. METHODS: We conducted an online experiment with a national sample of 1,119 U.S. adults with rheumatoid arthritis and related conditions, sampled through random-digit dialing, address-based sampling, and online ads. We randomized participants to receive one of several versions of a patient information handout for a fictitious drug, either with or without additional context, then measured comprehension and other outcomes. RESULTS: Additional qualitative context about warnings and side effects resulted in lower comprehension of side effect information, but not information about uses of the drug or warnings. The effect of additional context on risk perceptions depended on whether the medication handout was delivered online or through the mail. Those who received a hardcopy of the handout with additional context had higher perceived risk of side effects than those who saw the version without additional context. CONCLUSION: More clarifying information is not always better and may lead to cognitive overload, inhibiting comprehension. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Additional research should further explore effects of context in online vs. hard-copy formats before practice implications can be determined.

Patient Perceptions of Switching to a Generic Dry Powder Inhaler - Increased Understanding Through Journey Mapping.

Purpose: This qualitative study explored patients' attitudes about and perceptions of generic dry powder inhaler (DPI) substitution for the brand product and patients' views of generic product quality, efficacy, design, and usability. Methods: Forty COPD and asthma patients (36 adults, four adolescents), who were actively using a brand DPI product, participated in one of six focus groups. Participants completed a journey mapping exercise to assess attitudes and opinions about a scenario where they refill their prescription and unexpectedly receive a generic DPI instead of their brand DPI. The focus groups were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed thematically. Results: The hypothetical scenario of unexpectedly receiving a generic DPI elicited mixed feelings including: happiness and relief about potential cost savings, confusion, disappointment, anger, and/or frustration with the unexpected switch. Participants in most groups anticipated anxiety or hesitation in using the generic DPI due to concerns about potential differences in usability, uncertainty about correct use, and questions about efficacy. Participants across all groups said they would ask a pharmacist or healthcare provider for information or answers to their questions, and some participants said they would use online resources. When participants held the brand and generic DPI devices, most preferred the brand DPI device and found it easier, less cumbersome, or more convenient to use (due to size and weight). However, many participants reiterated that the potential reduced cost of the generic DPI would be a primary factor in their decision-making related to generic DPI substitution for their brand DPI. Conclusion: Patients experienced a mixture of positive and negative feelings when faced with an unexpected generic DPI substitution. Some patients have doubts about their ability to successfully navigate differences in generic device design, and most expressed the desire to participate in discussions and decision-making with their HCP about generic DPI sameness and substitution.

Intentions and beliefs about getting tested for STDs: implications for communication interventions.

Although sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) are common among college students, there have been few studies that examine the psychological determinants of STD testing. To help address this gap in the literature, we drew on the reasoned action framework to gain insight into the cognitive processes underlying STD-testing intentions for two samples of college students (n = 181 and n = 160). More generally, we demonstrate how behavioral theory can be applied in formative research to generate recommendations for developing communication interventions. Our findings suggest that attitudes toward getting tested for STDs were the strongest determinant of intentions for the college students in our samples. Further, results of a belief analysis indicate that students who did not intend to get tested for STDs might change their mind if they could be persuaded that getting tested would show that they respect their sexual partner or that getting tested would prevent them from spreading an STD to someone else.

Experimental evidence of consumer and physician detection and rejection of misleading prescription drug website content.

BACKGROUND: Consumers and primary care physicians (PCPs) sometimes encounter deceptive promotional claims about prescription drugs. Whether consumers and PCPs can detect deceptive claims or whether those claims negatively affect medical decision making, however, remain important, unanswered research questions. OBJECTIVES: This article explores (1) the ability of consumers and PCPs to identify deceptive prescription drug promotion at various levels of deception, (2) the influence of such tactics on obstructing risk recognition, and (3) whether perceived deception mediates relationships between exposure to deceptive tactics and various outcomes (including false-claim acceptance, attitudes, information-seeking intentions, and interest toward the promoted drug). METHODS: Two experiments-1 with consumers (N = 366) and 1 with PCPs (N = 378)-were conducted to determine whether participant exposure to deceptive prescription drug website content corresponds to detection and acceptance (or rejection) of claims and tactics. In each experiment, the number of deceptive claims and tactics on a consumer- or PCP-targeted website for a fictitious chronic pain medication were varied, in a 1 × 3 (none, fewer, more) between-subjects design. RESULTS: Among consumers, exposure to more deceptive claims or tactics did not increase suspicion about the veracity of the website (relative to fewer claims and tactics) and actually had a limited positive direct effect on false-claim acceptance and attitudes toward the drug. Among PCPs, a mediation effect existed such that exposure to more deceptive claims and tactics resulted in higher perceived website deceptiveness relative to those in the fewer deceptive claims condition, which, in turn, resulted in lower acceptance of deceptive claims and tactics, lower perceived drug effectiveness, more negative attitudes toward the drug, and lower interest and intentions. CONCLUSION: These experiments demonstrate potential differences between consumers and PCPs as well as implications for consumer and PCP vulnerability to website deception.

Using 360-Degree Video as a Research Stimulus in Digital Health Studies: Lessons Learned.

Due to the accessibility of omnidirectional cameras to record 360-degree videos and the technology to view the videos via mobile phones and other devices, 360-degree videos are being used more frequently to place people in different contexts and convey health-related information. Increasingly, 360-degree videos are being employed in health marketing because they have the potential to enhance health-related attitudes and behaviors. As a case study on how this technology may be used for health-related information and its effect on health care providers, we created a 360-degree video that portrays the experience of a migraine sufferer to be used as a stimulus in an online study. We describe the challenges and lessons learned in designing and implementing a 360-degree video as part of an online experiment focused on inducing empathy among clinicians for understanding patient experience. Given the rapid change in digital technology, future research can use this knowledge to design and implement 360-degree video studies more effectively.

Consumer responses to framing statements preceding the major risk statement in prescription drug DTC TV ads.

BACKGROUND: Research on the major risk statement in direct-to-consumer (DTC) prescription drug television ads has shown that risk severity and actionability can affect consumers' risk comprehension and perceptions. A framing statement presented just before the major risk statement may serve as a cue that directs attention to the risk statement that follows, or it may guide consumers' interpretation of the severity of the risks that follow. OBJECTIVE: Examine how the use of different framing statements (severe, life-threatening; serious; or basic) that precede the major risk statement in DTC television ads affect consumers' risk perceptions, risk recognition, benefit perceptions, interest in the drug, and other relevant outcomes. METHODS: An online experiment was conducted using a 1 × 3 between-subjects design to compare three different framing statements, which was replicated across three different DTC television ads that focused on different medical conditions (arthritis, lung cancer, and type 2 diabetes). A sample of US adults (N = 1961) was randomly assigned to view one of nine television ads and asked to respond to a questionnaire. RESULTS: The type of framing statement had significant effects on perceived risk severity, perceived utility of risk and benefit information, fear of risks, and perceived likelihood of explicit and implicit benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Consumers pay attention to and use cues to process and interpret the risk information presented to them in DTC television ads. Using lead-in language that describes risk severity, particularly for products with severe, life-threatening risks, may better allow consumers to make evaluative judgments on risk severity in DTC ads than stating the drug can cause serious reactions or simply that reactions are possible. More work is needed to examine the factors that affect people's understanding of the nature of risk severity, particularly with regard to risk recognition.