Experimental Study of the Promotional Implications of Proprietary Prescription Drug Names.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science Pub Date : 2024-09-28 DOI:10.1007/s43441-024-00704-8
Susana Peinado, Amie C O'Donoghue, Kevin R Betts, Ryan S Paquin, Kristen Giombi, Jennifer E Arnold, Bridget J Kelly, Christine Davis
{"title":"Experimental Study of the Promotional Implications of Proprietary Prescription Drug Names.","authors":"Susana Peinado, Amie C O'Donoghue, Kevin R Betts, Ryan S Paquin, Kristen Giombi, Jennifer E Arnold, Bridget J Kelly, Christine Davis","doi":"10.1007/s43441-024-00704-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The meaning and characteristics embedded in proprietary drug names have the potential to affect name recall, perceptions of drug benefits and risks, and attitudes toward a drug. In this study, we examined: (1) whether names that reference the drug's medical indication affect consumers' and primary care physicians' (PCPs') perceptions of the drug and (2) whether names that overstate the drug's efficacy affect consumers' and PCPs' perceptions of the drug.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted an online experiment with 455 PCPs and 450 consumers to test the effects of fictitious proprietary prescription drug names. Participants were randomized to view one neutral drug name, one name that overstated the drug's efficacy, and five names that referenced the drug's medical indication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Names that referenced the drug's medical indication and names that overstated the drug's benefit both influenced perceptions of efficacy and risk compared to neutral names. For several outcomes, names evoking medical indications had similar effects to those designed to overstate the drug's efficacy. The patterns of effects were similar for PCPs and consumers.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Findings suggest drug names alone can be sufficient to produce attitudes and risk and benefit perceptions about drugs, even in the absence of any information beyond the drug's medical indication.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00704-8","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The meaning and characteristics embedded in proprietary drug names have the potential to affect name recall, perceptions of drug benefits and risks, and attitudes toward a drug. In this study, we examined: (1) whether names that reference the drug's medical indication affect consumers' and primary care physicians' (PCPs') perceptions of the drug and (2) whether names that overstate the drug's efficacy affect consumers' and PCPs' perceptions of the drug.

Methods: We conducted an online experiment with 455 PCPs and 450 consumers to test the effects of fictitious proprietary prescription drug names. Participants were randomized to view one neutral drug name, one name that overstated the drug's efficacy, and five names that referenced the drug's medical indication.

Results: Names that referenced the drug's medical indication and names that overstated the drug's benefit both influenced perceptions of efficacy and risk compared to neutral names. For several outcomes, names evoking medical indications had similar effects to those designed to overstate the drug's efficacy. The patterns of effects were similar for PCPs and consumers.

Conclusion: Findings suggest drug names alone can be sufficient to produce attitudes and risk and benefit perceptions about drugs, even in the absence of any information beyond the drug's medical indication.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
处方药名称的促销意义实验研究》。
背景:专利药品名称中蕴含的含义和特征可能会影响人们对药品名称的记忆、对药品益处和风险的认知以及对药品的态度。在本研究中,我们考察了:(1)提及药物医疗适应症的名称是否会影响消费者和初级保健医生(PCPs)对药物的认知;(2)夸大药物疗效的名称是否会影响消费者和初级保健医生对药物的认知:我们对 455 名初级保健医生和 450 名消费者进行了在线实验,以测试虚构的专利处方药名称的影响。参与者被随机分配查看一个中性药名、一个夸大药效的药名和五个提及药物医疗适应症的药名:结果:与中性名称相比,提及药物医疗适应症的名称和夸大药物疗效的名称都会影响人们对药物疗效和风险的认知。在几种结果中,唤起医疗适应症的名称与夸大药物疗效的名称具有相似的效果。对初级保健医生和消费者的影响模式相似:研究结果表明,即使在没有药物医疗适应症以外的任何信息的情况下,仅凭药物名称就足以产生对药物的态度以及风险和益处的认知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
期刊最新文献
Efficiency of eSource Direct Data Capture in Investigator-Initiated Clinical Trials in Oncology. Mutagenic Azido Impurities in Drug Substances: A Perspective. Draft Guideline for Industry to Manage Drug Shortages in Japan. Unleashing the Power of Reliance for Post-Approval Changes: A Journey with 48 National Regulatory Authorities. A Comprehensive Framework for Evaluating the Value Created by Real-World Evidence for Diverse Stakeholders: The Case for Coordinated Registry Networks.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1