Experimental Study of the Promotional Implications of Proprietary Prescription Drug Names.
Attitude
Benefit
Drug names
Medical indication
Perception
Risk
Journal
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
ISSN: 2168-4804
Titre abrégé: Ther Innov Regul Sci
Pays: Switzerland
ID NLM: 101597411
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Sep 2024
28 Sep 2024
Historique:
received:
06
03
2024
accepted:
20
09
2024
medline:
29
9
2024
pubmed:
29
9
2024
entrez:
28
9
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
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. 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. 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. 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.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
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
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
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
CONCLUSIONS
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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 39341979
doi: 10.1007/s43441-024-00704-8
pii: 10.1007/s43441-024-00704-8
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Drug Information Association, Inc.
Références
U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA]. Contents of a Complete Submission for the Evaluation of Proprietary Names: Guidance for Industry. 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm075068.pdf
Finucane ML, Alhakami A, Slovic P, Johnson SM. The affect heuristic in judgments of risks and benefits. J Behav Decis Mak. 2000;13(1):1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1%3C1::Aid-bdm333%3E3.0.Co;2-s
doi: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0771(200001/03)13:1<1::Aid-bdm333>3.0.Co;2-s
Cho H. The malleable effect of name fluency on pharmaceutical drug perception. J Health Psychol. 2015;20(10):1369–74. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105314525486
doi: 10.1177/1359105314525486
pubmed: 24677431
Dohle S, Siegrist M. Fluency of pharmaceutical drug names predicts perceived hazardousness, assumed side effects and willingness to buy. J Health Psychol. 2014;19(10):1241–9. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105313488974
doi: 10.1177/1359105313488974
pubmed: 23740259
Burani C, Salmaso D, Caramazza A. Morphological structure and lexical access. Visible Lang. 1984;18:342–52.
Taft M. Morphological decomposition and the reverse base frequency effect. Q J Exp Psychol A. 2004;57(4):745–65. https://doi.org/10.1080/02724980343000477
doi: 10.1080/02724980343000477
pubmed: 15204131
Leonard E, Prevel Katsanis L. The dimensions of prescription drug brand personality as identified by consumers. J Consum Mark. 2013;30(7):583–96. https://doi.org/10.1108/jcm-08-2013-0662
doi: 10.1108/jcm-08-2013-0662
Robertson K. Strategically desirable brand name characteristics. J Consum Mark. 1989;6(4):61–71. https://doi.org/10.1108/eum0000000002563
doi: 10.1108/eum0000000002563
Keller KL, Heckler SE, Houston MJ. The effects of brand name suggestiveness on advertising recall. J Mark. 1998;62(1). https://doi.org/10.1177/002224299806200105
Tasso A, Gavaruzzi T, Lotto L. What is in a name: drug names convey implicit information about their riskiness and efficacy. Appl Cogn Psychol. 2014;28(4):539–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3033
doi: 10.1002/acp.3033
Karet GB. How do drugs get named? AMA J Ethics. 2019;21(8):E686–96. https://doi.org/10.1001/amajethics.2019.686
doi: 10.1001/amajethics.2019.686
pubmed: 31397664
Kelly BJ, Rupert DJ, Aikin KJ, Sullivan HW, Johnson M, Bann CM, et al. Development and validation of prescription drug risk, efficacy, and benefit perception measures in the context of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2021;17(5):942–55. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.028
doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.028
pubmed: 32883618
Chew LD, Griffin JM, Partin MR, Noorbaloochi S, Grill JP, Snyder A, et al. Validation of screening questions for limited health literacy in a large VA outpatient population. J Gen Intern Med. 2008;23(5):561–6. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5
doi: 10.1007/s11606-008-0520-5
pubmed: 18335281
pmcid: 2324160
Cohen J. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. 2nd ed. Hillsdale (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1988.
Baayen RH, Davidson DJ, Bates DM. Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. J Mem Lang. 2008;59(4):390–412. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
doi: 10.1016/j.jml.2007.12.005
Barr DJ, Levy R, Scheepers C, Tily HJ. Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: keep it maximal. J Mem Lang. 2013;68(3). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jml.2012.11.001
Rubin M. When to adjust alpha during multiple testing: a consideration of disjunction, conjunction, and individual testing. Synthese. 2021;199:10969–1000. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-021-03276-4
doi: 10.1007/s11229-021-03276-4
Aaker DA. Managing brand equity. New York: Free; 1991.
Ajzen I, Fishbein M. Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall; 1980.
Alhakami AS, Slovic P. A psychological study of the inverse relationship between perceived risk and perceived benefit. Risk Anal. 1994;14(6):1085–96.
doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00080.x
pubmed: 7846317
O’Donoghue AC, Williams PA, Sullivan HW, Boudewyns V, Squire C, Willoughby JF. Effects of comparative claims in prescription drug direct-to-consumer advertising on consumer perceptions and recall. Soc Sci Med. 2014;120:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.039
doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.039
pubmed: 25194471
pmcid: 7342488
Brewer NT, Weinstein ND, Cuite CL, Herrington JE. Risk perceptions and their relation to risk behavior. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(2):125–30. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7
doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2702_7
pubmed: 15026296
Champion VL, Skinner CS. The health belief model. In: Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. Jossey-Bass; 2008. pp. 45–65.
Ferrer R, Klein WM. Risk perceptions and health behavior. Curr Opin Psychol. 2015;5:85–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.012
doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2015.03.012
pubmed: 26258160
pmcid: 4525709
Blumenthal-Barby JS, Krieger H. Cognitive biases and heuristics in medical decision making: a critical review using a systematic search strategy. Med Decis Mak. 2015;35(4):539–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X14547740
doi: 10.1177/0272989X14547740
Rothman AJ, Salovey P. Shaping perceptions to motivate health behavior: the role of message framing. Psychol Bull. 1997;121(1):3–19.
doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.121.1.3
pubmed: 9000890
Yoshikawa K, Kizaki H, Imai S, Hori S. Influence of voiced and semi-voiced sounds on the subjective similarity of different drug names: a cognitive psychological experiment. Biol Pharm Bull. 2023;46(11):1630–4.
doi: 10.1248/bpb.b23-00396
pubmed: 37914366