Search

The way consumers get and seek health information reflects the current information landscape. To gather updated insights on consumer experiences with and attitudes towards direct-to-consumer (DTC) promotion of prescription drugs, we conducted a nationally representative survey of 1,744 US adults using a mail-push-to-web methodology with paper nonresponse follow-up. Results showed high exposure and indifferent attitudes to DTC promotion. Respondents reported DTC promotion has prompted action, particularly searches for more information, increased use of online resources, and some reported that they refused to take or stopped taking a prescription drug because they saw or heard about the drug's side effects.

Background: Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising is prevalent and affects patient care. Previous research that examined its effect on the patient-provider relationship predates many changes in the advertising and medical landscape that have occurred in the last decade, such as the rise in online promotion and the push for value-based medicine. Methods: We conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey of 1744 US adults in 2017 to explore how patients view the effects of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising on patient-provider interactions. Results: Most respondents (76%) said they were likely to ask a health care provider about advertised drugs; 26% said they had already done so. Among the 26% of respondents who talked to a health care provider about a specific prescription drug they saw advertised, 16% said they received a prescription for the advertised drug. Few respondents (5%) reported that advertising had caused conflict with a health care provider, 16% said it had caused them to question their provider’s advice, and 23% said they were likely to look for a different provider if their provider refused to prescribe a requested brand name drug. Discussion: These results suggest that direct-to-consumer advertising is driving some patients to discuss specific products with their health care providers but that most patients do not believe advertising has a negative influence on the patient-provider interaction itself.

Black and Hispanic populations perceive their skin cancer risk to be low and are less likely to use sun protection strategies. We conducted formative research to understand knowledge, awareness, beliefs, and behaviors among these groups. In 2017, eighteen focus groups were conducted with black and Hispanic respondents(18–44 years) in four US cities. Groups were segmented by participant characteristics associated with elevated or lower risk for skin cancer, by race/ethnicity, gender, and age. A professional moderator followed a semi-structured discussion guide, and focus group transcripts were analyzed using conventional content analysis and NVIVO 11 Software. Most participants perceived themselves to be at low skin cancer risk due to their “darker skin tone” and/or “lack of family history.” Skin cancer signs and symptoms were more inconsistently reported by blacks than Hispanics. Few participants reported regular sun protection behaviors. Those who did used sunscreen, wore protective clothing, and had elevated risk based on sun sensitivity or UV exposure. While most participants recalled family discussions (as youth) about sunscreen and sun protection, the understood intent was to warn against “further skin darkening” or to “prevent aging,” not to reduce sun burns or skin cancer risk. Tanning bed use was low across all segments, especially among black respondents. Tailored skin cancer prevention campaigns need to address misperceptions about risks and benefits of skin cancer prevention behaviors among black and Hispanic populations. Families, peer groups, and healthcare providers need to be engaged in the creation of educational interventions and messaging efforts that target these populations. Keywords: Skin neoplasms, Knowledge, Awareness, Behaviors, African American, Hispanic Americans

Glaucoma is a leading cause of vision loss and blindness in the U.S. Risk factors include African American race, older age, family history of glaucoma, and diabetes. This paper describes the evaluation of a mobile eye health and a telemedicine program designed to improve access to eye care among people at high-risk for glaucoma.The RE-AIM (reach, efficacy, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) evaluation framework was used to harmonize indicators. Both programs provided community-based eye health education and eye services related to glaucoma detection and care. Each program reported data on participants and community partners. An external evaluator conducted site visit interviews with program staff and community partners. Quantitative and qualitative data were integrated and analyzed using the RE-AIM dimensions.By targeting high-risk populations and providing comprehensive eye exams, both programs detected a large proportion of new glaucoma-related cases (17-19%) - a much larger proportion than that found in the general population (2%). The educational intervention increased glaucoma knowledge; evidence that it led people to seek eye care was inconclusive.Evaluation findings from the mobile eye health program and the telemedicine program may provide useful information for wider implementation in public health clinics and in optometrist clinics located in retail outlets.

Clinical trials are essential for developing new and effective treatments and improving patient quality of life; however, many trials cannot answer their primary research questions because they fall short of their recruitment goals. This article reports the results of formative research conducted in two populations, the public and primary care physicians, to identify messages that may raise awareness and increase interest in clinical trials and be used in a national communication campaign. Results suggested that participants were primarily motivated to participate in clinical trials out of a self-interest to help themselves first. Messages illustrated that current treatments were tested via clinical trials, helped normalize trials as routine practices, and reduced concerns over trying something new first. Participants wanted messages that portray trials as state-of-the-art choices that offer some hope, show people like themselves, and are described in a clear, concise manner with actionable steps for them to take. The study revealed some differences in message salience, with healthy audiences exhibiting lower levels of interest. Our results suggest that targeted messages are needed, and that communication with primary health-care providers is an important and necessary component in raising patient awareness of the importance of clinical trials.

Purpose Misperceptions of how the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates prescription drugs may affect how consumers assess the safety and efficacy of prescription drugs. The study objective was to survey the public on their knowledge of FDA oversight regarding prescription drug approval and advertising. Methods In 2017, we conducted a nationally representative mail-push-to-web survey with 1,744 US adults. Results Although most respondents (86%) knew that FDA approves prescription drugs, we found misperceptions about what that approval means. In addition, few respondents understood FDA oversight of prescription drug advertising, with approximately half of respondents reporting that they did not know whether FDA approved these ads or components of the ads, and several mis-reporting that FDA approves these ads (31%) or components of the ads (22%-41%). Conclusions Enhanced collaboration and communication with the public by key stakeholders in this space could increase public understanding of the roles and responsibilities of FDA.

Participation in community-based self-management education and physical activity interventions has been demonstrated to improve quality of life for those who have arthritis and other chronic diseases. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Arthritis Program funded 21 state health departments to expand the reach (defined as the number of people who participate in interventions) of 10 evidence-based interventions in community settings. The Arthritis Centralized Evaluation assessed the strategies and tactics used by state health departments to expand the reach of these evidence-based interventions. The evaluation compared and contrasted processes used by the states to expand reach. Engaging multisite delivery system partners, prioritizing reach, embedding interventions within partners’ routine operations, and collaborating across chronic disease program areas were all dissemination strategies that were correlated with expanded intervention reach. However, states also encountered challenges that limited their ability to successfully engage delivery systems as partners. These barriers included difficulty identifying delivery system partners and the lengthy time periods partners needed to adopt and embed the interventions.