You are here

  • Home
  • Archive
  • Volume 7, Issue 12
  • ‘At-risk’ individuals’ responses to direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: a nationally representative cross-sectional study

Article Text

Article menu

Download PDFPDF

XML
Public health
Research
‘At-risk’ individuals’ responses to direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs: a nationally representative cross-sectional study
  1. Neda Khalil Zadeh1,2,
  2. Kirsten Robertson1,
  3. James A Green2
  1. 1 Department of Marketing, School of Business, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
  2. 2 School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, Otago, New Zealand
  1. Correspondence to Ph.D. Candidate Neda Khalil Zadeh; neda.khalilzadeh{at}postgrad.otago.ac.nz

Abstract

Objectives The factors determining individuals’ self-reported behavioural responses to direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs were explored with an emphasis on ‘at-risk’ individuals’ responses.

Design Nationally representative cross-sectional survey.

Setting Community living adults in New Zealand.

Participants 2057 adults (51% women).

Primary outcome measures Self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising (asking a physician for a prescription, asking a physician for more information about an illness, searching the internet for more information regarding an illness and asking a pharmacist for more information about a drug).

Methods Multivariate logistic regressions determined whether participants’ self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising were predicted by attitudes towards advertising and drug advertising, judgements about safety and effectiveness of advertised drugs, self-reported health status, materialism, online search behaviour as well as demographic variables.

Results Identifying as Indian and to a less extent Chinese, Māori and ‘other’ ethnicities were the strongest predictors of one or more self-reported responses (ORs 1.76–5.00, Ps<0.05). Poorer self-reported health status (ORs 0.90–0.94, all Ps<0.05), favourable attitude towards drug advertising (ORs 1.34–1.61, all Ps<0.001) and searching for medical information online (ORs 1.32–2.35, all Ps<0.01) predicted all self-reported behavioural outcomes. Older age (ORs 1.01–1.02, Ps<0.01), less education (OR 0.89, P<0.01), lower income (ORs 0.89–0.91, Ps<0.05) and higher materialism (ORs 1.02–1.03, Ps<0.01) also predicted one or more self-reported responses.

Conclusions Taken together, the findings suggest individuals, especially those who are ‘at-risk’ (ie, with poorer self-reported health status, older, less educated, lower income and ethnic minorities), may be more vulnerable to drug advertising and may make uninformed decisions accordingly. The outcomes raise significant concerns relating to the ethicality of drug advertising and suggest a need for stricter guidelines to ensure that drug advertisements provided by pharmaceutical companies are ethical.

  • direct to consumer advertising
  • prescription drugs
  • self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising
  • structural influence model of health communication
  • ‘at risk’ individuals

This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-017865

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    Strengths and limitations of this study

    • A strength of this study is the use of the large and representative sample so that the findings can be generalised to the national population of New Zealand.

    • This is the first study to explore the factors determining individuals’ self-reported behavioural responses to direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs in New Zealand and at a population level.

    • This study shows, for the first time, the responses of ethnic minorities to drug advertising outside of North America.

    • The cross-sectional study does not explore the causal relationships between dependent and independent variables.

    • The findings of this study were based on self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising and might not reflect individuals’ actual behavioural responses.

    Introduction

    Direct to consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription drugs is a controversial pharmaceutical marketing strategy.1 Currently, it is only legal in New Zealand and the USA,2–6 although advertising on the internet can cross geographical boundaries, and the European Commission has considered a proposal for drug advertising.7 A health communication tool such as DTCA can have positive or negative consequences.8 The outcomes of DTCA depend on the types of advertised drugs and the nature of the illnesses to be treated.

    DTCA is most likely to deliver public health benefits when the condition to be treated is serious and when the treatment is safe, effective, and underused. However, DTCA will tend to deliver net harms when the condition is mild or trivial and when the treatment is potentially dangerous, marginally effective, or overused (p0286).8

    Furthermore, the effect of DTCA varies depending on how individuals interpret and respond to the information. Of concern, the vast and disparate information in drug advertising reaches individuals directly and poses challenges to individuals to make informed choices on whether the advertised drugs will be beneficial or deleterious.9 Supporters of drug advertising claim that it improves individuals’ autonomy by increasing awareness of medical problems, symptoms and existing treatments; accordingly, it can assist patients to make superior medical decisions.4 10–13 However, exposure to health information through DTCA does not necessarily lead to knowledge12 and can result in individuals requesting a drug that they do not actually need.14 Studies show that individuals typically understand the benefits far better than the risks.15 Furthermore, new drugs presented in DTCA may have unknown side effects or safety issues.16 Opponents of DTCA argue that the primary motive of the pharmaceutical industry is to increase profit rather than to help individuals make informed health-related decisions.17–20

    The pharmaceutical industry spends billions of dollars annually on promotion21 to push consumers to buy the advertised medications, spending more on promotion than research and development.22 Such advertising has been blamed for changing the pattern of use of healthcare services,23 including medicalising normal human conditions,23 driving overconsumption of new prescription drugs and motivating requests for more expensive medications.5 24 For instance, in countries with a socialised health system, such as New Zealand, where the government subsidises generic drugs, advertising can convince patients to request a non-subsidised branded medication over a subsidised generic one. The prescription charge for each subsidised medication is $NZ5, whereas there may be an additional (sometimes substantial) cost if the drug is not fully subsidised.25 Prescription drugs must be prescribed by physicians, and medical professionals act as gatekeepers between DTCA and individuals. However, as a result of drug advertising, patients may pressure physicians to prescribe the advertised branded drugs, and patients’ requests for specific drugs significantly increase the likelihood that requested drugs are prescribed.8 26 27 Physicians also report that DTCA negatively influences the physician–patient relationship because patients challenge their knowledge based on information they have received through drug advertising.28 29 The interference in the physician–patient relationship can result in ill-informed patients and treatments that are not fully tailored to the patients’ conditions.30 Consequently, the question arises as to whether individuals are able to make informed decisions in response to drug advertising.

    There is a lack of research examining possible communication disparities in response to drug advertising,31 and researchers have suggested the need for detailed examinations of responses of various social groups.9 Models of drug advertising commonly assume identical attention, processing and behaviour among individuals. However, if the information is not suitably fitted to individuals’ needs and knowledge, it can limit their ability to make informed decisions instead of strengthening it.32 The structural influence model (SIM) of health communication suggests that social determinants are linked to health communication outcomes and theorises that health communication disparities can be seen in terms of inequalities in how people act on heath information.33 Similarly, there might be disparities in individuals’ responses to drug advertising. Assuming that there might be differences between social groups in their ability to process and respond to drug advertising, it is important to understand the outcomes of exposure to DTCA between different social groups.9 The current study, therefore, explored whether there were communication disparities in self-reported behavioural responses to DTCA, focusing in particular on ‘at-risk’ individuals’ responses.

    In healthcare, the terms ‘vulnerable’ or potentially ‘at-risk’ are used to refer to individuals who are ethnic minorities, children, elderly, those with certain medical conditions as well as socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals, such as those with a lower level of education and/or a lower level of income.34–36 ‘At-risk’ individuals are more likely to experience a medical information gap. For instance, older individuals are more vulnerable to DTCA than are younger individuals because they tend to obtain less information from the advertisements30 and are more likely to misinterpret information on the effectiveness of advertised drugs.37 The misinterpretation of a drug’s effectiveness can complicate the physician–patient relationship if the patient requests the advertised drug.37 While younger adults might also misinterpret information in DTCA, older adults are more likely to have several medical conditions requiring more prescription drugs and are therefore more likely to be effected by communication gaps in drug advertisements.30 Less educated and lower income individuals may obtain less information from drug advertisement and may be more vulnerable than others to the medication information gap.30 People with poorer health may similarly be more vulnerable to drug advertising as they have also been defined as vulnerable populations in the medical domain,34 35 and they may need to use more prescription drugs. Furthermore, research typically shows that health outcomes for ethnic minorities are poorer compared with the majority populations.35 36 38–40 For example, earlier research has reported dissimilarities in health outcomes of different ethnicities in the USA and New Zealand. In both countries, poorer health outcomes were found among the minority populations. Ethnic minorities can, therefore, be considered as vulnerable or ‘at-risk’ people.39 Given the growing concern about the role of health literacy and social imbalance in health-related outcomes, more studies have to be conducted to map the paths between social determinants and health-related consequences.41 42 Drawing on the SIM of health communication, the present study explored whether there was any social imbalance as a function of individual characteristics with regard to responding to drug advertising. Using a representative sample within New Zealand, this study examined whether ‘at-risk’ individuals (with poorer self-reported health status, older, less educated, lower income, lower occupational status and ethnic minorities) were more likely to be influenced by drug advertising.

    Research has also focused on the role of attitudes and personal characteristics in determining responses to advertising. Positive attitudes towards drug advertising predict behavioural intentions and responses to such advertising.43–45 Thus, the present study examined the influence of attitudes towards advertising and DTCA on perceived behavioural responses to drug advertising. In addition, this study explored the personal trait of materialism to examine whether there was a relationship between materialistic traits and responding to drug advertising. Materialism emphasises the importance placed on goods and their purchase to help achieve desired goals or situations.46 Drug advertising uses emotional appeals, for instance, showing a character in a fearful state, followed by a happy state after using the product, to communicate that purchasing the product is a way to overcome insecurity.47 The association between feelings of insecurity and materialistic behaviour was discussed as early as the 1950s.48 Materialism is also linked with poorer health status including physical symptoms, drug use49 50 and lower subjective well-being.51–57 Considering the nature of advertising, coupled with materialistic individuals’ greater attention to advertising,58 proneness to compulsive consumption52 59–62 and susceptibility to advertising,54 it is reasonable to speculate that materialistic individuals might be more likely to respond to DTCA, especially given that DTCA markets drugs to individuals in the same fashion as other fast-moving consumer goods. However, no previous research has explored the relationships between materialism and responses to drug advertising. Therefore, the current study examined the effects of materialism on self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising. In addition, people are increasingly searching for medical information on the internet,63 but this may differ by education, income and ethnicity. These inequalities in internet usage may intensify health inequalities among different groups.64–66 Therefore, this study also examined the influence of the use of the internet to search for medical information on self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising.

    Methods

    Source of data

    This study analysed a subset of pharmaceutical-related and health-related questions from a large online survey covering a range of attitudes, behaviour, consumption and lifestyle questions. Data collection was performed in late 2013 by Research Now, a leading market research company operating in more than 40 countries with over 11 million panellists. Quota sampling was used for selecting the survey participants. The instructions were that the respondents were to be demographically representative of the New Zealand population in terms of age, sex, education, ethnicity and income. The full-survey instrument took approximately 40 min to complete. A total of 2057 usable responses were retained for analysis. Since an independent panel survey was used, it was not possible to calculate a response rate (participants were signed up to complete the surveys that they were sent). All participants answered all of the questions used in this study since the questions were not based on a response logic of any earlier item in the questionnaire. This study had ethics approval from the University of Otago, and all participants gave their written consent.

    Variables

    Dependent variables

    Perceived effects of DTCA on individuals were measured by asking participants to report their behavioural responses after exposure to a drug advertisement through four yes/no questions drawn from previous studies: (1) As a result of seeing an advertisement for a drug, have you asked your physician for a prescription?67 (2) As a result of seeing an advertisement for a drug, have you asked your physician for more information about an illness?67 (3) As a result of seeing an advertisement for a drug, have you searched the internet for more information regarding an illness?68 (4) As a result of seeing an advertisement for a drug, have you asked your pharmacist for more information about a drug?67

    Independent variables (predictors)

    Measures of attitudes and knowledge were made on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). Participants were asked about their general attitude towards advertising,69 attitude towards DTCA,45 70 knowledge about the safety of advertised drugs71 72 and knowledge about the effectiveness of drugs.72 Self-reported/subjective health status, a valid and widely used indicator of health conditions,73–76 was measured by asking respondents’ self-rated satisfaction with their health on a 10-point Likert scale from 1 (completely dissatisfied) to 10 (completely satisfied).71 Materialism was measured by using Richins and Dawson’s Materialism Value Scale, including 18 statements on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).46 Richins and Dawson’s Scale has been widely used in consumer research47 77–80 and shown robust psychometric properties in international research.47 81 This scale was originally argued to have three subscales (centrality, happiness and success), but this dimensional structure is not consistently found in the data.82 83 In this study, the exploratory factor analysis/confirmatory factor analysis found evidence for a 2-factor model, but with all the negatively worded items loading on the second factor, suggesting that this factor is an artefactual factor, based on the positive or negative wording of items, rather than a real latent dimension.84 85 Moreover, previous research has revealed that although there are three dimensions in the original scale, items can be summed to reflect an overall materialism score.86 Accordingly, in line with common practice, a total materialism score was computed.86–90 Based on omega and alpha estimates, the internal consistency (reliability) of the scale was good (ω=0.81 (95% CI 0.80 to 0.82), α=0.81 (0.80 to 0.82)). Use of the internet to search for medical information was measured by the sum of two yes/no items; ie, searching for medical advice online and visiting a health-related blog (ω=0.72 (0.70 to 0.74), α=0.70 (0.67 to 0.72)). Demographic information on age (as a continuous variable), gender, ethnicity (as multiple dummy variables, with New Zealand European as the reference level), education, income and occupation (as multiple dummy variables, with unemployed as the reference level) were also used.

    Data analysis

    Data were analysed with IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, V.22.0, IBM. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate frequencies, mean and SD of items. Omega and alpha estimates of reliability were calculated using the ‘MBESS’ package in R. Multivariate binary logistic regression models were used to show independent variables predicting self-reported behavioural responses to DTCA and subsequently to reveal the factors determining self-reported behavioural outcomes. The outcomes of the logistic regression analyses were presented as ORs with 95% CIs. Predictive accuracy and overall appropriateness of the models were examined by non-significant (P>0.05) Hosmer-Lemeshow tests91 and significant (P<0.01) Omnibus test of model coefficients.

    Results

    Sample characteristics

    The demographics of the sample are presented in table 1.

    View this table:
    Table 1

    Demographics of the sample (n=2057)

    Table 2 shows the means and SD for non-demographic independent variables.

    View this table:
    Table 2

    Non-demographic independent variables

    About 60% of respondents considered themselves in good health, 5.2% were completely satisfied with their overall health, 25% were dissatisfied and only 3.4% were completely dissatisfied with their overall health. 48% had looked for medical information online. Almost a third of the sample (30.7%) believed that DTCA was helpful for consumers, 43.7% thought that only drugs that are completely safe could be advertised and 35.3% believed that only drugs that are extremely effective could be advertised. Moreover, as a result of seeing DTCA, 11.4% of participants asked their physicians for a prescription, 15.9% asked their physicians for more information, 34.4% searched the internet for more information and 16.2% asked their pharmacists for more information.

    Predictors of self-reported behavioural outcomes

    Results of the logistic regression analyses predicting each self-reported behavioural outcomes are shown in table 3.

    View this table:
    Table 3

    Summary of multivariate binary logistic regression models predicting self-reported DTCA-triggered behaviours

    Having asked a physician for a prescription after seeing a drug advertisement was most strongly predicted by identifying as Indian (OR 5.00; 95% CI 2.81 to 8.91, P<0.001) or Chinese (OR 2.23; 95% CI 1.14 to 4.39, P<0.05), followed by more positive attitudes towards DTCA (OR 1.61; 95% CI 1.35 to 1.91, P<0.001). Searching for health information online (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.11 to 1.57, P<0.01) was a moderate strength predictor. Weaker predictors were higher materialism (OR 1.03; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.05, P<0.001), poorer self-reported health status (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.99, P<0.05), lower income (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.81 to 0.97, P<0.05) and less education (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96, P<0.01). Students (OR 0.48; 95% CI 0.24 to 0.96, P<0.05) were strongly less likely to report asking a physician for a prescription than were unemployed respondents. This model correctly classified the outcome for 89% of the cases and explained 14.3% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variation in asking a physician for a prescription. The non-significant result of Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ2=4.78, df=8, P=0.78) and the significant result of Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients (P<0.001) demonstrated that the model had a good fit to the data.

    Having asked a physician about an illness after seeing a drug advertisement was most strongly predicted by identifying as Indian (OR 3.88; 95% CI 2.21 to 6.81, P<0.001), Chinese (OR 1.99; 95% CI 1.04 to 3.80, P<0.05) or Māori (OR 1.76; 95% CI 1.19 to 2.60, P<0.01), followed by searching for health information online (OR 1.67; 95% CI 1.44 to 1.93, P<0.001) and more positive attitudes towards DTCA (OR 1.53; 95% CI 1.31 to 1.77, P<0.001). It was weakly predicted by older age (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03, P<0.001), poorer self-reported health status (OR 0.93; 95% CI 0.89 to 0.98, P<0. 01) and lower income (OR 0.89; 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96, P<0.01). This model correctly classified the outcome for 84.2% of the cases and explained 14.5% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variation in asking a physician about an illness. The non-significant result of Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ2=10.22, df=8, P=0.25) and the significant result of Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients (P<0.001) again showed a good model fit.

    Having searched the internet for more information regarding an illness after seeing a drug advertisement was strongly predicted by searching for health information online (OR 2.35; 95% CI 2.08 to 2.65, P<0.001), moderately predicted by more positive attitude towards DTCA (OR 1.34; 95% CI 1.19 to 1.51, P<0.001) and weakly predicted by higher materialism (OR 1.02; 95% CI 1.01 to 1.03, P<0. 01), in addition to poorer self-reported health status (OR 0.90; 95% CI 0.86 to 0.93, P<0.001). Women were somewhat (OR 1.36; 95% CI 1.09 to 1.70, P<0.01) more likely than men to report searching the internet for more information regarding an illness after exposure to DTCA. This model correctly classified the outcome for 71.3% of the cases and explained 20.7% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variation in searching the internet for more information regarding an illness. The non-significant result of Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ2=20.03, df=8, P=0.01) and the significant result of Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients (P<0.001) showed a good fit.

    Having asked a pharmacist for more information about an advertised drug after seeing a drug advertisement was most strongly predicted by identifying as Chinese (OR 2.55; 95% CI 1.40 to 4.63, P<0.01), Māori (OR 2.06; 95% CI 1.41 to 3.01, P<0.001) or ‘other’ ethnicities (OR 1.78; 95% CI 1.27 to 2.50, P<0.01). More positive attitudes towards DTCA (OR 1.39; 95% CI 1.21 to 1.61, P<0.001) and searching for health information online (OR 1.32; 95% CI 1.14 to 1.53, P<0.001) were moderate strength predictors. Weaker predictors were older age (OR 1.01; 95% CI 1.004 to 1.03, P<0.01), poorer self-reported health status (OR 0.94; 95% CI 0.90 to 0.99, P<0.05) and lower income (OR 0.91; 95% CI 0.84 to 0.98, P<0.05). This model correctly classified the outcome for 83.9% of the cases and explained 10.2% (Nagelkerke R2) of the variation in asking a pharmacist for more information about an advertised drug. Model fit was again good with a non-significant result of Hosmer-Lemeshow test (χ2=7.01, df=8, P=0.53) and significant result of Omnibus Tests of Model Coefficients (P<0.001).

    Discussion

    Individuals lacked knowledge regarding the regulation and safety of drug advertising with nearly half of all participants believing that only drugs that are completely safe could be advertised. Similarly, a substantial proportion thought that only drugs that are extremely effective could be advertised. Individuals are often vulnerable to misinformation92 and do not try to process the rest of the provided information if a drug advertisement presents a drug as effective.29 Inaccurate positive belief regarding the safety and efficacy of advertised drugs is concerning given that advertising may induce unwarranted inferences and change individuals’ beliefs over time,93 the main goal of drug advertising is to persuade rather than to inform,94 95 and research shows that drug advertising is usually effective at persuasion.96 97 Furthermore, some drugs that are advertised directly to consumers have serious side effects. For instance, Vioxx (rofecoxib) was heavily advertised for 5 years in more than 80 countries, including New Zealand. It was subsequently withdrawn from the worldwide market in 2004 over safety concerns about increased risk of heart attack and stroke.98–100

    Participants reported responding to drug advertising by seeking the medication or further information as a result of seeing a drug advertisement, indicating a general effect of DTCA. Such reported behaviour can have varied outcomes; requesting a prescription drug may lead to either appropriate treatment or inappropriate and excessive prescribing.8 Moreover, searching or asking for more information can increase individuals’ awareness of medical conditions and potential treatments, but it can also lead to seeking medications for irrelevant, non-medical or minor medical problems.101 Discussions about inappropriate drugs or unrelated medical conditions can take time away from necessary medical examinations or prevent communications regarding healthy lifestyle changes or mental health issues, which can consequently influence patients’ well-being.94 102 Furthermore, finding reliable information on the internet is challenging ‘(like finding a needle in a haystack), and the noise of DTCA just makes the haystack larger’ (p0286).8

    Of importance, this study found disparities in self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising with ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at-risk’ individuals (ie, poorer subjective health status, older, less educated, lower income and ethnic minorities) being more likely to report responses to drug advertising. In particular, respondents’ ethnicity influenced self-reported behavioural responses, so that some ethnic minorities were strongly more likely to report behavioural responses, relative to New Zealand Europeans. This study extends the handful of studies, which have examined responses of ethnic minorities to DTCA,103 and shows the disparate effects of drug advertising on vulnerable populations outside of North America. Respondents who had lower levels of satisfaction with their health status were more likely than other individuals to report engaging in all four behavioural responses. Older individuals were also more likely than others to seek more information from a physician or pharmacist as a result of seeing a drug advertisement. While health issues and associated needs for prescriptions might explain self-reported behavioural responses of older individuals and those who were less satisfied with their health status, other individuals classed as ‘vulnerable’ due to social determinants were also more likely to respond to drug advertising. Respondents with lower levels of education were more likely to ask a physician for a prescription. Those with lower levels of income were more likely to report all behavioural responses except for searching the internet, and unemployed respondents were more likely than students to ask a physician for a prescription. Taken together, the current findings showed communication inequalities in response to drug advertising with ‘vulnerable’ or ‘at-risk’ individuals being more likely to respond to such advertising. These findings are consistent with the SIM of health communication, which suggests that differences in health behaviours among different social groups can be explained by focusing on how social determinants are linked to health communication outcomes.9 104 The imbalance in self-reported behavioural responses of ‘at-risk’ individuals raises concerns regarding the ethicality of drug advertising in its present form. Although physicians play the role of gatekeepers and moderate the effects of drug advertising on individuals, patients’ requests can drive physicians’ medication choices.26 Many physicians have reported that assuring patients that a requested medication is not suitable is challenging and onerous.105

    In the current study, a favourable attitude towards drug advertising predicted all self-reported behavioural outcomes. The fact that individuals might respond to drug advertising based on their favourable attitudes, coupled with the fact that participants had inaccurate knowledge regarding the safety and effectiveness of advertised drugs, suggests that individuals are at risk of being influenced by the promotional nature of the advertisements. This is a significant concern since drug advertising is self-regulated in New Zealand,4 106 and medicine advertisements often present patient success stories, which can mislead the public.107 This risk is further evident by the finding that materialism positively predicted self-reported behavioural responses to DTCA, including asking a physician for a prescription and searching the internet for more information. Previous studies have revealed that materialism is associated with lower psychological well-being, more physical symptoms, more drug use, more attention to advertising as well as purchasing behaviour.48 50–62 The current findings linking materialism to responding to drug advertising align with earlier research showing that materialism is closely related to excessive and uncontrollable shopping and compulsive consumption.52 60–62 These outcomes add to this body of research by suggesting that materialistic individuals might be more likely than others to treat prescription drugs similarly to other consumer goods. Of note, reliance on the internet for medical information also predicted all self-reported behavioural responses to DTCA. Thus, pharmaceutical companies could improve the ethicality of their advertising by using the internet to develop patient support and offer informative online DTCA, which can help people to have more effective discussions with health professionals.

    Limitations and strengths

    The current findings were based on cross-sectional data, thus causal inferences could not be made. Future longitudinal studies could further explore the effects of social determinants, personal characteristics and exposure to drug advertisements on health communication outcomes, including prescription drug purchasing. Moreover, the findings were based on self-reported behavioural responses and might not reflect individuals’ actual behavioural responses. Experimental studies should be conducted to extend the outcomes and contributions of this study. Since this study focused on perceived behavioural responses, perceptions of the informativeness of DTCA and motivations for responding to DTCA were not explored and could be examined in future research.

    The outcomes from our large representative sample can be generalised to national population in New Zealand and have important implications for both healthcare policy-makers and pharmaceutical companies. This research suggests that regulations on drug advertising should be tightened. Moreover, health policy-makers should increase knowledge regarding drug advertising and let individuals know that advertised medications are not necessarily safe and effective. Health policy-makers can also concentrate on people’s attitudes towards advertising of prescription drugs and let them know that it is a paid promotion conveyed by pharmaceutical companies. Health professionals need to be well informed of all medications prior to them being advertised to help individuals make safe choices. Furthermore, pharmaceutical companies should advertise their medications responsibly and educate individuals about treatments constructively since people, especially those who are more vulnerable, may ask for a medication that they do not need. Drug advertisements can discuss lifestyle alternatives to taking drugs and state that there are other medications available, which may have the identical effects.

    Conclusions

    While much attention has been paid to perceived behavioural responses to drug advertising, to the best of our knowledge, no study has documented ‘at-risk’ individuals’ perceived behavioural responses to drug advertising. This study, therefore, grounded in communication inequality and the SIM, presented the factors predicting individuals’ self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising. This research found that ‘at-risk’ individuals were more vulnerable to drug advertising as supported by the representative empirical findings. Furthermore, the outcomes revealed the importance of attitudes towards DTCA over and above knowledge of regulation and safety of advertised drugs, which can leave individuals vulnerable to drug advertising and at risk of making uninformed decisions accordingly. The current research also addressed the important question of whether materialism has effects on self-reported behavioural responses to drug advertising and revealed that respondents higher in materialism were more likely to be affected by drug advertising, suggesting that they might pay more attention to advertisements, or DTCA might be appealing to their consumerism, a trait that is associated with lower psychological well-being.59

    Taken together, the outcomes suggest that drug advertising affects the most ‘at-risk’ individuals, who base their decisions on their attitudes, who are motivated to consume and who rely on the internet for medical information. The findings raise significant concerns regarding ethicality of DTCA and suggest a need for policy developments to ensure medicine advertisements are ethical and do not cause misuse or overuse of medications.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      2. Gu P ,
      3. Williams KA ,
      4. Aslani P , et al
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines on the internet: an australian consumer perspective. J Res Pharm Pract 2011;41:196–202.doi:10.1002/j.2055-2335.2011.tb00861.x
      OpenUrl
    2. 2.↵
      2. Toop L ,
      3. Mangin D
      . Industry funded patient information and the slippery slope to New Zealand. BMJ 2007;335:694–5.doi:10.1136/bmj.39346.525764.AD
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    3. 3.↵
      2. Spake DF ,
      3. Joseph M
      . Consumer opinion and effectiveness of direct‐to‐consumer advertising. J Consum Mark 2007;24:283–93.doi:10.1108/07363760710773102
      OpenUrl
    4. 4.↵
      2. Mintzes B
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs in Canada. What are the public health implications? Health Council of Canada, 2006.
    5. 5.↵
      2. Wilkinson J ,
      3. Vail A ,
      4. Roberts SA
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising of success rates for medically assisted reproduction: a review of national clinic websites. BMJ Open 2017;7:e012218.doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012218
    6. 6.↵
      2. Delbaere M
      . Metaphors and myths in pharmaceutical advertising. Soc Sci Med 2013;82:21–9.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.01.020
      OpenUrl
    7. 7.↵
      2. Magrini N ,
      3. Font M
      . Direct to consumer advertising of drugs in Europe. BMJ 2007;335:526.doi:10.1136/bmj.39310.506308.AD
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    8. 8.↵
      2. Almasi EA ,
      3. Stafford RS ,
      4. Kravitz RL , et al
      . What are the public health effects of direct-to-consumer drug advertising? PLoS Med 2006;3:e145.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0030145
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. 9.↵
      2. Kontos EZ ,
      3. Viswanath K
      . Cancer-related direct-to-consumer advertising: a critical review. Nat Rev Cancer 2011;11:142–50.doi:10.1038/nrc2999
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    10. 10.↵
      2. Blinn N ,
      3. Kühne M
      . Health information on the internet - state of the art and analysis. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2013;5:259–74.
      OpenUrl
    11. 11.↵
      2. Brown D ,
      3. Williams B
      . Retraction. Direct to consumer advertising of statins: an assessment of safety. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2012;21:1137.doi:10.1002/pds.3304
      OpenUrlPubMed
    12. 12.↵
      2. Carbonell V
      . Philosophy Documentation Center. How to put prescription drug ads on your syllabus. Teach Philos 2014;37:295–319.doi:10.5840/teachphil201461917
      OpenUrl
    13. 13.↵
      2. Frosch DL ,
      3. Grande D ,
      4. Tarn DM , et al
      . A decade of controversy: balancing policy with evidence in the regulation of prescription drug advertising. Am J Public Health 2010;100:24–32.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2008.153767
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    14. 14.↵
      2. Every-Palmer S ,
      3. Duggal R ,
      4. Menkes DB
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medication in New Zealand. N Z Med J 2014;127:102–10.
      OpenUrl
    15. 15.↵
      2. Kaphingst KA ,
      3. DeJong W
      . The educational potential of direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Health Aff 2004;23:143–50.doi:10.1377/hlthaff.23.4.143
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. 16.↵
      2. Shuchman M
      . Drug risks and free speech--can congress ban consumer drug ads? N Engl J Med 2007;356:2236–9.doi:10.1056/NEJMp078080
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    17. 17.↵
      2. Abel GA , et al
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising in oncology. Oncologist 2006;11:217–26.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.11-2-217
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    18. 18.↵
      2. Hoen E
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising: for better profits or for better health? Am J Health Syst Pharm 1998;55:594–7.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    19. 19.↵
      2. Schwartz LM ,
      3. Woloshin S ,
      4. Welch HG
      . Using a drug facts box to communicate drug benefits and harms: two randomized trials. Ann Intern Med 2009;150:516–27.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    20. 20.↵
      2. Sumpradit N ,
      3. Ascione FJ ,
      4. Bagozzi RP
      . A cross-media content analysis of motivational themes in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Clin Ther 2004;26:135–54.doi:10.1016/S0149-2918(04)90014-8
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. 21.↵
      2. Gagnon MA ,
      3. Lexchin J
      . The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States. PLoS Med 2008;5:e1.doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0050001
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. 22.↵
      2. Chao BA
      . Evaluating the educational content of direct-to-consumer fulfillment materials. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005;62:620–5.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    23. 23.↵
      2. Mintzes B
      . For and against: Direct to consumer advertising is medicalising normal human experience: For. BMJ 2002;324:908–11.doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7342.908
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    24. 24.↵
      2. Roth MS
      . Media and message effects on DTC prescription drug print advertising awareness. J Advert Res 2003;43:180–93.doi:10.2501/JAR-43-2-180-193
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. 25.↵
    26. 26.↵
      2. McKinlay JB ,
      3. Trachtenberg F ,
      4. Marceau LD , et al
      . Effects of patient medication requests on physician prescribing behavior: results of a factorial experiment. Med Care 2014;52:294–9.doi:10.1097/MLR.0000000000000096
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. 27.↵
      2. Toop L ,
      3. Dee R ,
      4. Tony D , et al
      . Direct to consumer advertising of prescription drugs in New Zealand: for health or for profit. Report to the Minister of Health supporting the case for a ban on DTCA. Dunedin: University of Otago, 2003.
    28. 28.↵
      2. Abel GA ,
      3. Penson RT ,
      4. Joffe S , et al
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising in oncology. Oncologist 2006;11:217–26.doi:10.1634/theoncologist.11-2-217
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    29. 29.↵
      2. Delbaere M ,
      3. Smith MC
      . Health care knowledge and consumer learning: the case of direct-to-consumer drug advertising. Health Mark Q 2006;23:9–29.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. 30.↵
      2. Foley LA ,
      3. Gross DJ
      . Are consumers well informed about prescription drugs?: the impact of printed direct-to-consumer advertising. Washington DC: AARP, Public Policy Institute, 2000.
    31. 31.↵
      2. Ramanadhan S ,
      3. Viswanath K
      . Health and the information nonseeker: a profile. Health Commun 2006;20:131–9.doi:10.1207/s15327027hc2002_4
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    32. 32.↵
      2. Womack CA
      . Ethical and epistemic issues in direct-to-consumer drug advertising: where is patient agency? Med Health Care Philos 2013;16:275–80.doi:10.1007/s11019-012-9386-8
      OpenUrl
    33. 33.↵
      2. Viswanath K ,
      3. Ackerson LK
      . Race, ethnicity, language, social class, and health communication inequalities: a nationally-representative cross-sectional study. PLoS One 2011;6:e14550.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0014550
    34. 34.↵
      2. Aday LA
      . Who are the vulnerable? At risk in America: the health and health care needs of vulnerable populations in the United States. 2nd. San Francisco, Calif: Jossey-Bass, 2001:1–15.
    35. 35.↵
      National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2005. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services, 2005. http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/pubs/pubd/hus/state.htm. (accessed 2 Aug 2006).
    36. 36.↵
      2. Waisel DB
      . Vulnerable populations in healthcare. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 2013;26:186–92.doi:10.1097/ACO.0b013e32835e8c17
      OpenUrl
    37. 37.↵
      2. Grenard JL ,
      3. Uy V ,
      4. Pagán JA , et al
      . Seniors’ perceptions of prescription drug advertisements: a pilot study of the potential impact on informed decision making. Patient Educ Couns 2011;85:79–84.doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.10.008
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. 38.↵
      2. Ajwani S ,
      3. Blakely T ,
      4. Robson B , et al
      . Decades of disparity: ethnic mortality trends in New Zealand 1980-1999. Wellington: Ministry of Health and University of Otago, 2003.
    39. 39.↵
      2. Bramley D ,
      3. Hebert P ,
      4. Tuzzio L , et al
      . Disparities in indigenous health: a cross-country comparison between New Zealand and the United States. Am J Public Health 2005;95:844–50.doi:10.2105/AJPH.2004.040907
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    40. 40.↵
      2. Marriott L ,
      3. Sim D
      . Indicators of inequality for Maori and Pacific people. Journal of New Zealand Studies 2015;20:24.
      OpenUrl
    41. 41.↵
      2. Ackerson LK ,
      3. Viswanath K
      . Communication inequalities, social determinants, and intermittent smoking in the 2003 Health Information National Trends Survey. Prev Chronic Dis 2009;6:A40.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    42. 42.↵
      2. Bekalu MA ,
      3. Eggermont S
      . The role of communication inequality in mediating the impacts of socioecological and socioeconomic disparities on HIV/AIDS knowledge and risk perception. Int J Equity Health 2014;13:16.doi:10.1186/1475-9276-13-16
      OpenUrl
    43. 43.↵
      2. Handlin A ,
      3. Mosca JB ,
      4. Forgione DA , et al
      . DTC pharmaceutical advertising: the debate’s not over. J Consum Mark 2003;20:227–37.doi:10.1108/07363760310472254
      OpenUrl
    44. 44.↵
      2. Herzenstein M ,
      3. Misra S ,
      4. Posavac SS
      . How Consumers’ Attitudes Toward Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Prescription Drugs Influence Ad Effectiveness, and Consumer and Physician Behavior. Mark Lett 2004;15:201–12.doi:10.1007/s11002-005-0458-x
      OpenUrl
    45. 45.↵
      2. Lee M ,
      3. Whitehill King K ,
      4. Reid LN
      . Factors influencing consumers' attitudinal and behavioral responses to direct-to-consumer and over-the-counter drug advertising. J Health Commun 2015;20:431–44.doi:10.1080/10810730.2014.965367
      OpenUrl
    46. 46.↵
      2. Richins ML ,
      3. Dawson S
      . A Consumer Values Orientation for Materialism and Its Measurement: Scale Development and Validation. J Consum Res 1992;19:303–16.doi:10.1086/209304
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    47. 47.↵
      2. Dumit J
      . Pharmaceutical Witnessing: Drugs for life in an era of Direct-to-consumer Advertising. In: Edwards J , Harvey P , Wade P , eds. Technologized images, technologized bodies. Oxford: Berghahn, 2010.
    48. 48.↵
      2. Maslow AH
      . Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row, 1954.
    49. 49.↵
      2. Kasser T ,
      3. Ryan RM
      . Further examining the american dream: differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 1996;22:280–7.doi:10.1177/0146167296223006
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    50. 50.↵
      2. Kasser T ,
      3. Ryan RM
      . Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In: Schmuck P , Sheldon KM , eds. Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe & Huber, 2001:116–31.
    51. 51.↵
      2. Chan R ,
      3. Joseph S
      . Dimensions of personality, domains of aspiration, and subjective well-being. Pers Individ Dif 2000;28:347–54.doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00103-8
      OpenUrl
    52. 52.↵
      2. Dittmar H ,
      3. Bond R ,
      4. Hurst M , et al
      . The relationship between materialism and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. J Pers Soc Psychol 2014;107:879–924.doi:10.1037/a0037409
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. 53.↵
      2. Kasser T ,
      3. Ahuvia A
      . Materialistic values and well-being in business students. Eur J Soc Psychol 2002;32:137–46.doi:10.1002/ejsp.85
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    54. 54.↵
      2. Kasser T ,
      3. Ryan RM ,
      4. Couchman CE , et al
      . Materialistic values: their causes and consequences. In: Kasser T , Kanner AD , eds. Psychology and consumer culture: the struggle for a good life in a materialistic world. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 2004:11–28.
    55. 55.↵
      2. Kim Y ,
      3. Kasser T ,
      4. Lee H
      . Self-concept, aspirations, and well-being in South Korea and the United States. J Soc Psychol 2003;143:277–90.doi:10.1080/00224540309598445
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    56. 56.↵
      2. Saunders S ,
      3. Munro D
      . The construction and validation of a consumer orientation questionnaire (SCOI) designed to measure Fromm’s (1955) “marketing character” in Australia. Soc Behav Personal 2000;28:219–40.doi:10.2224/sbp.2000.28.3.219
      OpenUrl
    57. 57.↵
      2. Schmuck P ,
      3. Kasser T ,
      4. Ryan RM
      . Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: their structure and relationship to well-being in German and U.S. college students. Soc Indic Res 2000;50:225–41.doi:10.1023/A:1007084005278
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    58. 58.↵
      2. Graham JF
      . Materialism and consumer behavior: toward a clearer understanding. J Soc Behav Pers 1999;14:241.
      OpenUrl
    59. 59.↵
      2. Kasser T
      . The high price of materialism. London: MIT Press, 2003.
    60. 60.↵
      2. Dittmar H
      . Compulsive buying–a growing concern? An examination of gender, age, and endorsement of materialistic values as predictors. Br J Psychol 2005;96:467–91.doi:10.1348/000712605X53533
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    61. 61.↵
      2. Eren SS ,
      3. Eroğlu F ,
      4. Hacioglu G
      . Compulsive buying tendencies through materialistic and hedonic values among college students in Turkey. Procedia Soc Behav Sci 2012;58:1370–7.doi:10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.09.1121
      OpenUrl
    62. 62.↵
      2. Ridgway NM ,
      3. Kukar-Kinney M ,
      4. Monroe KB
      . An expanded conceptualization and a new measure of compulsive buying. J Consum Res 2008;35:622–39.doi:10.1086/591108
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    63. 63.↵
      2. Globalization MTK
      . Evolution and emergence of direct-to-consumer advertising: are emerging markets the next pharmaceutical marketing Frontier? J Commerc Biotechnol 2012;18:58–64.
      OpenUrl
    64. 64.↵
      2. Koch-Weser S ,
      3. Bradshaw YS ,
      4. Gualtieri L , et al
      . The Internet as a health information source: findings from the 2007 Health Information National Trends Survey and implications for health communication. J Health Commun 2010;15:279–93.doi:10.1080/10810730.2010.522700
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    65. 65.↵
      2. Rains SA
      . Health at high speed: broadband Internet access, health communication, and the digital divide. Commun Res 2008;35:283–97.
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    66. 66.↵
      2. Viswanath K ,
      3. Kreuter MW
      . Health disparities, communication inequalities, and eHealth. Am J Prev Med 2007;32:131–133.doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.012
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    67. 67.↵
      2. Huh J ,
      3. DeLorme DE ,
      4. Reid LN
      . Factors affecting trust in on-line prescription drug information and impact of trust on behavior following exposure to DTC advertising. J Health Commun 2005;10:711–31.doi:10.1080/10810730500326716
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    68. 68.↵
      2. Menon AM ,
      3. Deshpande AD ,
      4. Perri M , et al
      . Trust in online prescription drug information among internet users. Health Mark Q 2003;20:17–35.doi:10.1300/J026v20n01_03
      OpenUrl
    69. 69.↵
      2. Ball JG ,
      3. Manika D ,
      4. Stout P
      . Causes and consequences of trust in direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising. Int J Advert 2016;35:216–47.doi:10.1080/02650487.2015.1009346
      OpenUrl
    70. 70.↵
      2. Morris LA ,
      3. Brinberg D ,
      4. Klimberg R , et al
      . The attitudes of consumers toward direct advertising of prescription drugs. Public Health Rep 1986;101:82–9.
      OpenUrl
    71. 71.↵
      2. Huh J ,
      3. Becker LB
      . Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: understanding its consequences. Int J Advert 2005;24:443–68.doi:10.1080/02650487.2005.11072938
      OpenUrl
    72. 72.↵
      2. Wilkes MS ,
      3. Bell RA ,
      4. Kravitz RL
      . Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact, and implications. Health Aff 2000;19:110–28.doi:10.1377/hlthaff.19.2.110
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    73. 73.↵
      2. Banerjee D ,
      3. Perry M ,
      4. Tran D , et al
      . Self-reported health, functional status and chronic disease in community dwelling older adults: untangling the role of demographics. J Community Health 2010;35:135–41.doi:10.1007/s10900-009-9208-y
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    74. 74.↵
      2. Idler EL ,
      3. Benyamini Y
      . Self-rated health and mortality: a review of twenty-seven community studies. J Health Soc Behav 1997;38:21–37.doi:10.2307/2955359
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    75. 75.↵
      2. Kuhn R ,
      3. Rahman O ,
      4. Menken J
      . Survey measures of health: how well do self-reported and observed indicators measure health and predict mortality? In: Cohen B , Menken J , eds. Committee on population, division of behavioral and social sciences and education.  Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2006:314–42.
    76. 76.↵
      2. McCallum J ,
      3. Shadbolt B ,
      4. Wang D
      . Self-rated health and survival: a 7-year follow-up study of Australian elderly. Am J Public Health 1994;84:1100–5.doi:10.2105/AJPH.84.7.1100
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    77. 77.↵
      2. Fitzmaurice J ,
      3. Comegys C
      . Materialism and social consumption. J Mark Theory Pract 2006;14:287–99.doi:10.2753/MTP1069-6679140403
      OpenUrl
    78. 78.↵
      2. Kamal S ,
      3. Chu S-C ,
      4. Pedram M
      . Materialism, attitudes, and social media usage and their impact on purchase intention of Luxury fashion goods among American and Arab young generations.  J Interact Advert 2013;13:27–40.doi:10.1080/15252019.2013.768052
      OpenUrl
    79. 79.↵
      2. Otero-López JM ,
      3. Pol EV ,
      4. Bolaño CC , et al
      . Materialism, life-satisfaction and addictive buying: examining the causal relationships. Pers Individ Dif 2011;50:772–6.doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.12.027
      OpenUrl
    80. 80.↵
      2. Roberts JA ,
      3. Tanner JF ,
      4. Manolis C
      . Materialism and the family structure–stress relation. J Consum Psychol 2005;15:183–90.doi:10.1207/s15327663jcp1502_10
      OpenUrl
    81. 81.↵
      2. Eastman JK ,
      3. Fredenberger B ,
      4. Campbell D , et al
      . The Relationship between Status Consumption and Materialism: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Chinese, Mexican, and American Student. J Mark Theory Pract 1997;5:52–66.doi:10.1080/10696679.1997.11501750
      OpenUrl
    82. 82.↵
      2. Lipovčan LK ,
      3. Prizmić-Larsen Z ,
      4. Brkljačić T
      . Materialism, affective states, and life satisfaction: case of Croatia. Springerplus 2015;4:699.doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1494-5
    83. 83.↵
      2. Richins ML
      . The Material Values Scale: Measurement Properties and Development of a Short Form. J Consum Res 2004;31:209–19.doi:10.1086/383436
      OpenUrlCrossRef
    84. 84.↵
      2. Schmitt DP ,
      3. Allik J
      . Simultaneous administration of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale in 53 nations: exploring the universal and culture-specific features of global self-esteem. J Pers Soc Psychol 2005;89:623–42.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.89.4.623
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    85. 85.↵
      2. Spector PE ,
      3. Van Katwyk PT ,
      4. Brannick MT , et al
      . When two factors don’t reflect two constructs: How item characteristics can produce artifactual factors. J Manage 1997;23:659–77.
      OpenUrl
    86. 86.↵
      In: Bearden W , Netemeyer R , Haws K , eds. Handbook of marketing scales: Multi-item measures for marketing and consumer behavior research. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2011.
    87. 87.↵
      2. Giacomantonio M ,
      3. Mannetti L ,
      4. Pierro A
      . Locomoting toward well-being or getting entangled in a material world: Regulatory modes and affective well-being. J Econ Psychol 2013;38:80–9.doi:10.1016/j.joep.2012.07.003
      OpenUrl
    88. 88.↵
      2. Opree SJ
      . Consumed by consumer culture? Advertising’s impact on children’s materialism and life satisfaction. University of Amsterdam 2014.
    89. 89.↵
      2. Slater A ,
      3. Tiggemann M
      . The influence of maternal self-objectification, materialism and parenting style on potentially sexualized ’grown up' behaviours and appearance concerns in 5-8year old girls. Eat Behav 2016;22:113–8.doi:10.1016/j.eatbeh.2016.05.002
      OpenUrl
    90. 90.↵
      2. Watson JJ
      . The relationship of materialism to spending tendencies, saving, and debt. J Econ Psychol 2003;24:723–39.doi:10.1016/j.joep.2003.06.001
      OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
    91. 91.↵
      2. Hosmer DW ,
      3. Lemeshow S ,
      4. Sturdivant RX
      . Applied Logistic Regression. 3rd ed. Wiley: Hoboken, 2013.
    92. 92.↵
      2. Mansfield P
      . Accepting what we can learn from advertising’s mirror of desire. BMJ 2004;329:1487–8.doi:10.1136/bmj.329.7480.1487
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    93. 93.↵
      2. Frosch DL ,
      3. May SG ,
      4. Tietbohl C , et al
      . Living in the “land of no”? Consumer perceptions of healthy lifestyle portrayals in direct-to-consumer advertisements of prescription drugs. Soc Sci Med 2011;73:995–1002.doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.06.064
      OpenUrlPubMed
    94. 94.↵
      2. Frosch DL ,
      3. Krueger PM ,
      4. Hornik RC , et al
      . Creating demand for prescription drugs: a content analysis of television direct-to-consumer advertising. Ann Fam Med 2007;5:6–13.doi:10.1370/afm.611
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    95. 95.↵
      2. Toop L ,
      3. Mangin D
      . The impact of advertising prescription medicines directly to consumers in New Zealand: lessons for Australia. Aust Prescr 2006;29:30–2.doi:10.18773/austprescr.2006.018
      OpenUrl
    96. 96.↵
      2. Kravitz RL ,
      3. Epstein RM ,
      4. Feldman MD , et al
      . Influence of Patients’ Requests for Direct-to-Consumer Advertised Antidepressants. JAMA 2005;293:1995–2002.doi:10.1001/jama.293.16.1995
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    97. 97.↵
      2. Gilbody S ,
      3. Wilson P ,
      4. Watt I
      . Benefits and harms of direct to consumer advertising: a systematic review. Qual Saf Health Care 2005;14:246–50.doi:10.1136/qshc.2004.012781
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    98. 98.↵
      2. Boyd A
      . Science and ethics in dialogue: ethical research conduct and genetic information application. Colloquium series on the genetic basis of human disease. 4: Morgan & Claypool Life Sciences, 2015:1–163.doi:10.4199/C00138ED1V01Y201509GBD007
      OpenUrl
    99. 99.↵
      2. Evans I ,
      3. Thornton H ,
      4. Chalmers I
      . Testing treatments: better research for better healthcare. 2nd ed. London: Pinter & Martin Ltd, 2011.
    100. 100.↵
      2. Mintzes B ,
      3. Mangin D
      . Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription medicines: a counter argument. Future Med Chem 2009;1:1555–60.doi:10.4155/fmc.09.136
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
    101. 101.↵
      2. Moynihan R ,
      3. Cassels A
      . Selling sickness: How the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies are turning us all into patients. New York: Nation Books, 2006.
    102. 102.↵
      2. Stange KC
      . Time to ban direct-to-consumer prescription drug marketing. Ann Fam Med 2007;5:101–4.doi:10.1370/afm.693
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    103. 103.↵
      2. Lee D ,
      3. Begley CE
      . Racial and ethnic disparities in response to direct-to-consumer advertising. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2010;67:1185–90.doi:10.2146/ajhp090600
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    104. 104.↵
      2. Viswanath K ,
      3. Ramanadhan S ,
      4. Kontos EZ
      . Macrosocial determinants of population health. Galea S , ed. Mass Media. New York: Springer, 2007:275–94.
    105. 105.↵
      2. Connors AL
      . Big bad pharma: an ethical analysis of physician-directed and consumer-directed marketing tactics. Albany Law Rev 2009;73:243.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    106. 106.↵
      2. Toop L ,
      3. Mangin D
      . The art and science of marketing medications. N Z Med J 2015;128:11–12.
      OpenUrl
    107. 107.↵
      2. Perry JE ,
      3. Cox AD ,
      4. Cox D
      . Direct-to-Consumer Drug Advertisements and the Informed Patient: A Legal, Ethical, and Content Analysis. American Business Law Journal 2013;50:729–78.doi:10.1111/ablj.12019
      OpenUrl

    Footnotes

    • Contributors NKZ, KR and JAG contributed to the concept and design, data interpretation and writing of the manuscript. NKZ analysed the data and drafted the manuscript. All authors approved the final manuscript. KR is the study guarantor.

    • Funding This research was funded by the Department of Marketing at the University of Otago.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Ethics approval This study had ethics approval from the University of Otago, and all participants gave their written consent.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

    • Data sharing statement No additional data are available.