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.

Assessing hearing and cognition challenges in consumer processing of televised risk information: Validation of self-reported measures using performance indicators.

Public health researchers face important challenges if they wish to include measures of hearing or cognitive ability in risk communication studies. We sought validity evidence for self-report measures of hearing and cognitive ability by comparing those measures to performance-based measures and risk information recall. We measured hearing ability (with audiologist-assisted assessment and self report), cognitive ability (with an established performance task and self report), and reactions to direct-to-consumer prescription drug promotion with adults 18 and older (n = 1064) in North Carolina, USA, in 2017. We found moderate correspondence between self-reported hearing loss and audiologist-assessed hearing loss. Both measures also showed a small negative association with recall of presented risk information. Cognitive ability results suggested less substantial correspondence between self report and performance task and the measures differed in predicting risk recall. Our results suggested a moderately efficient measure for hearing ability for research on risk information exposure and retention, and yet also suggested the need for caution regarding future use of self-reported cognitive ability as a substitute for a performance-based measure.