Direct-To-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs

In 2007, the pharmaceutical industry spent more than $4.9 billion on direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs in the U.S. Controversy over DTCA has grown since the Food and Drug Administration liberalized its regulations in 1997. Proponents claim that such advertising educates consumers, promotes patient participation in clinical decisions, and improves patient adherence to medication instructions. Opponents argue that such advertising is meant to persuade, not educate, and that it promotes inappropriate use of prescription drugs, or diverts consumers from better alternatives. This Issue Brief summarizes the evidence about the effects of DTCA, and proposes guidelines for improving the utility of prescription drug advertising

Implementing Shared Decision-Making: Consider All the Consequences

The ethical argument that shared decision-making is “the right” thing to do, however laudable, is unlikely to change how healthcare is organized, just as evidence alone will be an insufficient factor: practice change is governed by factors such as cost, profit margin, quality, and efficiency. It is helpful, therefore, when evaluating new approaches such as shared decision-making to conceptualize potential consequences in a way that is broad, long-term, and as relevant as possible to multiple stakeholders. Yet, so far, evaluation metrics for shared decision-making have been mostly focused on short-term outcomes, such as cognitive or affective consequences in patients. The goal of this article is to hypothesize a wider set of consequences, that apply over an extended time horizon, and include outcomes at interactional, team, organizational and system levels, and to call for future research to study these possible consequences

Effect of Exposure to Small Pharmaceutical Promotional Items on Treatment Preferences

Background: Policy discussions concerning pharmaceutical promotion often assume that small promotional items are unlikely to influence prescribing behavior. Our experiment measures whether exposure to these items results in more favorable attitudes toward marketed products and whether policies that restrict pharmaceutical marketing mitigate this effect. Methods: This is a randomized controlled experiment of 352 third- and fourth-year medical students at two US medical schools with differing policies toward pharmaceutical marketing. Participants assigned to treatment were exposed to small branded promotional items for Lipitor (atorvastatin) without knowledge that the exposure was part of the study. We measured differences in implicit (ie, unconscious) attitudes toward Lipitor and Zocor (simvastatin) in exposed and control groups with the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Self-reported attitudes were also measured, and a follow-up survey was administered measuring attitudes toward marketing. Results: Fourth-year students at the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine exposed to Lipitor promotional items had more favorable implicit attitudes about that brand-name drug compared to the control group (IAT effect: 0.66 vs 0.47; P = .05), while the effect was reversed at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine (IAT effect: 0.22 vs 0.52; P = .002) where restrictive policies are in place limiting pharmaceutical marketing (interaction effect: P = .003). No significant effect was observed among third-year students. On a “skepticism” scale, University of Miami students held more favorable attitudes toward pharmaceutical marketing compared to University of Pennsylvania students (0.55 vs 0.42; P Conclusions: Subtle exposure to small pharmaceutical promotional items influences implicit attitudes toward marketed products among medical students. We observed a reversal of this effect in the setting of restrictive policies and more negative school-level attitudes toward marketing

In Absentia: an Exploratory Study of How Patients are Considered in Multidisciplinary Cancer Team Meetings

Background: Multidisciplinary team meetings and shared decision-making are potential means of delivering patient-centred care. Not much is known about how those two paradigms fit together in cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how decisions are made in multidisciplinary team meetings and whether patient perspectives are incorporated in these decisions. Materials and Methods: A qualitative study was conducted using non-participant observation at multidisciplinary team meetings (also called tumor boards) at the University Cancer Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, Germany. Two researchers recorded structured field notes from a total of N = 15 multidisciplinary team meetings. Data were analyzed using content analysis and descriptive statistics. Results: Physicians mainly exchanged medical information and based their decision-making on this information. Individual patient characteristics or their treatment preferences were rarely considered or discussed. In the few cases where patient preferences were raised as a topic, this information did not seem to be taken into account in decision-making processes about treatment recommendations. Conclusion: The processes in multidisciplinary team meetings we observed did not exhibit shared decision-making. Patient perspectives were absent. If multidisciplinary team meetings wish to become more patient-centred they will have to modify their processes and find a way to include patient preferences into the decision-making process

Importance of clarifying patients\u27 desired role in shared decision making to match their level of engagement with their preferences

Analysis and support of clinical decision makin

Predicting prostate cancer treatment choices: The role of numeracy, time discounting, and risk attitudes

Prostate cancer is the most common cancer among males in the United States and there is lack of consensus as to whether active surveillance (AS) or radical prostatectomy (RP) is the best course of treatment. In this study we examined the role of three overlooked determinants of decision making about prostate cancer treatment in a hypothetical experiment—numeracy, time discounting, and risk taking in 279 men over age 50 without a prior prostate cancer diagnosis. Results showed that AS was the most frequently chosen option. Furthermore, numeracy and time discounting significantly predicted participants’ preference for AS, whereas a propensity to take risks was associated with a preference for RP. Such insights into the factors that affects cancer treatment preferences may improve tailored decision aids and help physicians be better poised to engage in shared decision-making to improve both patient-reported and clinical outcomes

Who and when should we screen for prostate cancer? Interviews with key opinion leaders

Prostate cancer screening using prostate-specific antigen (PSA) is highly controversial. In this Q & A, Guest Editors for BMC Medicine's 'Spotlight on Prostate Cancer' article collection, Sigrid Carlsson and Andrew Vickers, invite some of the world's key opinion leaders to discuss who, and when, to screen for prostate cancer. In response to the points of view from the invited experts, the Guest Editors summarize the experts' views and give their own personal opinions on PSA screening

Assessing the scholarly impact of health psychology: A citation analysis of articles published from 1993 to 2003.

ObjectiveWe conducted a citation analysis to explore the impact of articles published in Health Psychology and determine whether the journal is fulfilling its stated mission.DesignSix years of articles (N = 408) representing three editorial tenures from 1993-2003 were selected for analysis.Main outcome measuresArticles were coded for several dimensions enabling examination of the relationship of article features to subsequent citations rates. Journals citing articles published in Health Psychology were classified into four categories: (1) psychology, (2) medicine, (3) public health and health policy, and (4) other journals.ResultsThe majority of citations of Health Psychology articles were in psychology journals, followed closely by medical journals. Studies reporting data collected from college students, and discussing the theoretical implications of findings, were more likely to be cited in psychology journals, whereas studies reporting data from clinical populations, and discussing the practice implications of findings, were more likely to be cited in medical journals. Time since publication and page length were both associated with increased citation counts, and review articles were cited more frequently than observational studies.ConclusionArticles published in Health Psychology have a wide reach, informing psychology, medicine, public health and health policy. Certain characteristics of articles affect their subsequent pattern of citation

A Randomized Controlled Effectiveness Trial for PSA Screening Decision Support Interventions in Two Primary Care Settings

BACKGROUND Decision support interventions (DESIs) provide a mechanism to translate comparative effectiveness research results into clinical care so that patients are able to make informed decisions. Patient decision support interventions for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) have been shown to promote informed decision making and reduce PSA testing in efficacy trials, but their impact in real world settings is not clear. OBJECTIVE We performed an effectiveness trial of PSA decision support interventions in primary care. DESIGN A randomized controlled trial of three distribution strategies was compared to a control. PARTICIPANTS Participants included 2,550 men eligible for PSA testing (76.6 % of the eligible population) and 2001 survey respondents (60.1 % survey response rate). INTERVENTIONS The intervention groups were: 1) mailed the DESI in DVD format, 2) offered a shared medical appointment (SMA) to view the DESI with other men and discuss, and 3) both options. MAIN MEASURES We measured PSA testing identified via electronic medical record at 12 months and DESI use by self-report 4 months after the intervention mailing. KEY RESULTS We found no differences in PSA testing across the three distribution strategies over a year-long follow-up period: 21 %, 24 %, 22 % in the DESI, SMA, and combined group respectively, compared to 21 % in the control group (p = 0.51). Self-reported DESI use was low across all strategies at 4 months: 16 % in the mailed DESI group, 6 % in the SMA group, and 15 % in the combined group (p = < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS Mailing PSA decision support interventions or inviting men to shared medical appointments unrelated to a primary care office visit do not appear to promote informed decision making, or change PSA testing behavior

I Believe, Therefore I Do

Item does not contain fulltex