Kevin R Betts, Kathryn J Aikin, Stephanie Miles, Miriam H Eisenberg Colman
{"title":"疾病认知与电视上的处方药传播:混淆和误导性产品印象的证据。","authors":"Kevin R Betts, Kathryn J Aikin, Stephanie Miles, Miriam H Eisenberg Colman","doi":"10.1080/10410236.2024.2323839","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>We conducted two experiments that tested for conflation of fictitious disease awareness and prescription drug promotional communications in a television advertising context and whether similarity, proximity, and number of exposures to the disease awareness communication contributed to this conflation. Study 1 involved a 1-h television segment, and Study 2 used a longitudinal design with participants exposed to communications over time. The promoted product was indicated to treat asthma. Participants (Study 1, <i>n</i> = 2190; Study 2, <i>n</i> = 1621) were adults who had experienced asthma or asthma symptoms. In Study 1, mere exposure to disease awareness communication prompted benefit and risk conflation, but the degree of similarity or proximity did not have an effect. In Study 2, similar ads prompted greater conflation of benefits than distinct ads, and greater conflation of risks occurred with greater proximity to disease awareness and promotional communications. In addition, asthma knowledge, health literacy, and perceived ad effectiveness increased conflation of benefits in both studies but tended not to modify the impact of similarity or proximity. The findings demonstrate the potential for disease awareness communications to confuse consumers regarding the benefits and risks of a drug.</p>","PeriodicalId":12889,"journal":{"name":"Health Communication","volume":" ","pages":"3405-3415"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Disease Awareness and Prescription Drug Communications on Television: Evidence for Conflation and Misleading Product Impressions.\",\"authors\":\"Kevin R Betts, Kathryn J Aikin, Stephanie Miles, Miriam H Eisenberg Colman\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10410236.2024.2323839\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>We conducted two experiments that tested for conflation of fictitious disease awareness and prescription drug promotional communications in a television advertising context and whether similarity, proximity, and number of exposures to the disease awareness communication contributed to this conflation. Study 1 involved a 1-h television segment, and Study 2 used a longitudinal design with participants exposed to communications over time. The promoted product was indicated to treat asthma. Participants (Study 1, <i>n</i> = 2190; Study 2, <i>n</i> = 1621) were adults who had experienced asthma or asthma symptoms. In Study 1, mere exposure to disease awareness communication prompted benefit and risk conflation, but the degree of similarity or proximity did not have an effect. In Study 2, similar ads prompted greater conflation of benefits than distinct ads, and greater conflation of risks occurred with greater proximity to disease awareness and promotional communications. In addition, asthma knowledge, health literacy, and perceived ad effectiveness increased conflation of benefits in both studies but tended not to modify the impact of similarity or proximity. The findings demonstrate the potential for disease awareness communications to confuse consumers regarding the benefits and risks of a drug.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12889,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Communication\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3405-3415\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Communication\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2323839\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/3/13 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"COMMUNICATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Communication","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2024.2323839","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/13 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
Disease Awareness and Prescription Drug Communications on Television: Evidence for Conflation and Misleading Product Impressions.
We conducted two experiments that tested for conflation of fictitious disease awareness and prescription drug promotional communications in a television advertising context and whether similarity, proximity, and number of exposures to the disease awareness communication contributed to this conflation. Study 1 involved a 1-h television segment, and Study 2 used a longitudinal design with participants exposed to communications over time. The promoted product was indicated to treat asthma. Participants (Study 1, n = 2190; Study 2, n = 1621) were adults who had experienced asthma or asthma symptoms. In Study 1, mere exposure to disease awareness communication prompted benefit and risk conflation, but the degree of similarity or proximity did not have an effect. In Study 2, similar ads prompted greater conflation of benefits than distinct ads, and greater conflation of risks occurred with greater proximity to disease awareness and promotional communications. In addition, asthma knowledge, health literacy, and perceived ad effectiveness increased conflation of benefits in both studies but tended not to modify the impact of similarity or proximity. The findings demonstrate the potential for disease awareness communications to confuse consumers regarding the benefits and risks of a drug.
期刊介绍:
As an outlet for scholarly intercourse between medical and social sciences, this noteworthy journal seeks to improve practical communication between caregivers and patients and between institutions and the public. Outstanding editorial board members and contributors from both medical and social science arenas collaborate to meet the challenges inherent in this goal. Although most inclusions are data-based, the journal also publishes pedagogical, methodological, theoretical, and applied articles using both quantitative or qualitative methods.