Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

“See your doctor”: the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising on patients with different affliction levels

Abstract

Pharmaceutical firms continue to advertise more and more prescription drugs directly to consumers, advocating them to discuss the focal health condition and the efficacy of the advertised drug with their physicians. In this paper, we investigate the effectiveness of such direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) on different types of patients. Specifically, we examine the impact of DTCA on patients with different affliction levels and the effectiveness of television versus print ads as an influence on more severely versus mildly afflicted patients to visit their physicians. Briefly, using data from the erectile dysfunction category, we find that DTCA generates a stronger response from new patients with severer versus milder afflictions. We also find that DTCA in print media generate a stronger response from new patients with severer versus milder afflictions whereas DTCA on television is more effective for new patients with milder conditions. We discuss the implications of our findings for policy makers concerned with improving public health as well as for pharmaceutical firms seeking to target different types of patients through print versus television ads.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

  1. 1.

    We acknowledge that another objective of DTCA is to remind current users and DTCA may influence new patients’ subsequent visits. We leave this as a future research avenue.

  2. 2.

    We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting the share model to appropriately assess the differential impact of DTCA on the two types of patients.

  3. 3.

    We add 1 to the share of mild patient visits to avoid the log of zero. For the DMA-month with zero new patient visits, the share is not defined. To solve the problem, we use the share from the previous month in the same DMA as an imputation for the share in the current month.

  4. 4.

    We tried to include an interaction effect between TV and print advertising but did not find significant interaction effect between TV and print advertising.

  5. 5.

    The grid search yields similar carry-over parameter estimates for the Poisson models. Our empirical results also remain qualitatively unchanged for alternative values of carryover rates.

References

  1. Berndt, E. R., Bui, L., Reiley, D. R., & Urban, G. L. (1995). Information, marketing, and pricing in the US antiulcer drug market. American Economic Review, 85, 100–105.

  2. Celia, F. (2017). Pharma ups the ante on DTC Advertising. Pharmaceutical Commerce Retrieved May 30, 2019, from https://pharmaceuticalcommerce.com/brand-marketing-communications/pharma-ups-ante-dtc-advertising/

  3. David, R. M., Clewell, H. J., Gentry, P. R., Covington, T. R., Morgott, D. A., & Marino, D. J. (2006). Revised assessment of cancer risk to dichloromethane II. Application of probabilistic methods to cancer risk determinations. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology, 45(1), 55–65.

  4. Dijkstra, M., & Raaij, W. F. v. (2002). Media effects by involvement under voluntary exposure: a comparison of television, print and stattic internet. Journal of Euromarketing, 11(2), 1–21.

  5. Donohue, J. M., Cevasco, M., & Rosenthal, M. B. (2007). A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. The New England Journal of Medicine, 357(7), 673–681.

  6. Edell, J. A., & Keller, K. L. (1989). The information processing of coordinated media campaigns. Journal of Marketing Research, 26, 149–163.

  7. Frederick, L. R., Cakir, O. O., Arora, H., Helfand, B. T., & McVary, K. T. (2014). Undertreatment of erectile dysfunction: claims analysis of 6.2 million patients. J. Sex Med, 11(10), 2546–2553.

  8. Garde, D. (2017). Tough times for gut guy? Drug industry braces for an attack on its TV ads, STAT News. Retrieved from https://www.statnews.com/2017/04/07/drug-ads-tv-congress/

  9. Gönül, F. F., Carter, F., & Wind, J. (2000). What kind of patients and physicians value direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Health Care Management Science, 3, 215–226.

  10. Greenwald, A. G., & Leavitt, C. (1984). Audience involvement in advertising: four levels. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 581–592.

  11. Harrison, J. A., Mullen, P. D., & Green, L. W. (1992). A meta-analysis of studies of the health belief models with adults. Health Education Research, 7(1), 107–116.

  12. Herzenstein, M., Misra, S., & Posavac, S. S. (2004). How consumers' attitude toward direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs influence ad effectiveness, and consumer and physician behavior. Marketing Letters, 15(4), 201–212.

  13. Holbrook, M. B. (1978). Beyond attitude structure. Journal of Marketing Research, 15, 546–556.

  14. Iizuka, T., & Jin, G. Z. (2005). The effect of prescription drug advertising on doctor visits. J. Econ. Manage. Strategy, 14, 701–727.

  15. Janz, N., & Becker, M. (1984). The health belief model: a decade later. Health Education Quarterly, 11, 1–47.

  16. Krugman, H. E. (1965). The impact of television advertising: learning without involvement. Public Opinion Quartely, 29, 349–356.

  17. Leventhal, H., Benyamini, Y., Brownless, S., Diefenbach, M., Leventhal, E. A., Patrick-Miller, L., & Robitaille, C. (1997). Illness representations: theoretical foundations Perceptions of Health and Illness (pp. 19-45). Amsterdam: Harwood Academic Publishers.

  18. Liu, Q., & Gupta, S. (2011). The impact of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs on physician visits and drug requests: empirical findings and public policy implications. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 28, 205–217.

  19. Liu, Q., & Gupta, S. (2014). Direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of pharmaceuticals: an integrative review. In M. Ding, J. Eliashberg, & S. Stremersch (Eds.), Innovation and marketing in the pharmaceutical industry (pp. 629–649). New York: Springer.

  20. Liu, Q., Steenburgh, T. J., & Gupta, S. (2015). The cross attributes flexible substitution logit: uncovering category expansion and share impacts of marketing instruments. Marketing Science, 34(1), 144–159.

  21. Macias, W., Pashupati, K., & Lewis, L. S. (2007). A wonderful life or diarrhea and dry mouth? Policy issues of direct-to-consumer drug advertising on television. Health Communication, 22(3), 241–252.

  22. Narayanan, S., Desiraju, R., & Chintagunta, P. K. (2004). Return on investment implications for pharmaceutical promotional expenditures: the role of marketing-mix interactions. J. Marketing, 68, 90–105.

  23. Nerlove, M., & Arrow, K. J. (1962). Optimal advertising policy under dynamic conditions. Economica, 29, 129–142.

  24. Pareek, B., Liu, Q., & Ghosh, P. (2019). Ask your doctor whether this product is right for you: a Bayesian joint model for patient drug requests and physician prescriptions. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society), 182(1), 197–223.

  25. Park, C. W., & Young, S. M. (1986). Consumer response to television commercials: the impact of involvement and background music on brand attitude formation. Journal of Marketing Research, 23(1), 11–24.

  26. Petty, R. D., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.

  27. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Schumann, D. (1983). Central and peripheral routes to advertising effectiveness: the moderating role of involvement. Journal of Consumer Research, 10, 134–148.

  28. Rogers, R. (1975). A protection motivation theory of fear appeals and attitude change. The Journal of Psychology, 91, 93–114.

  29. Rogers, R. (1983). Cognitive and physiological processes in fear-based attitude change: a revised theory of protection motivation. In J. Cacioppo & R. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology: a sourcebook (pp. 153–176). New York: Guilford Press.

  30. Rosenstock, I. (1966). Why people use health services. The Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly, 44, 94–127.

  31. Rosenthal, M. B., Berndt, E. R., Donohue, J. M., Epstein, A. M., & Frank, R. G. (2003). Demand effects of recent changes in prescription drug promotion. Forum for Health Economics & Policy, 6(1), 1–28.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Qiang Liu.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The data used in this study were generously provided by ImpactRx Inc

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 29 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Liu, Q., Liu, H. & Kalwani, M. “See your doctor”: the impact of direct-to-consumer advertising on patients with different affliction levels. Mark Lett (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11002-020-09514-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Consumer involvement
  • Direct-to-consumer advertising
  • DTCA
  • Medium
  • Patient flow
  • Health care