The
new study drew harsh criticism of the advertising practices of the
pharmaceutical industry, where experts say that the television
commercials that promote drugs that do not require a prescription
(prescription) filled with Balastattaf does not have any useful
information about the disease itself.
Says the author of the study, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, Dr. Dominique Vorsh: "take advantage of advertising emotion instead of listing information to market the drug. The question here is: Do I have to be buying prescription drugs that require a doctor prescription buying soap?".
The drug companies spent nearly $ 1.9 billion on television advertising in 2005. For more information on advertising strategy used in some advertisements have Vorsh he and his colleagues, given the sample of 38 medication offered an ad on TV between June and July 2004.
Have used corporations Statistics for peak-time television, which gave the ads and the most powerful impact than just repeat broadcast.
Researchers say that 82% of the ads sponsored propaganda based on facts, but few have provided information about the disease, such as causes (26%) and the seriousness of the disease (26%) and the extent of its prevalence (25%).
Has provided 95% of advertising appeals to viewers with an emotional suggested 78% of the advertisements that the use of drugs will increase the social approbation. In 58% of the cases the drug was presented as a significant progress in the therapeutic industry.
The study included research on the ads for drugs Alerja (sensitivity) and Ambyn (anti-insomnia) and Cialis (erectile dysfunction) and other medicines are not taken without a doctor prescription highlight.
According to the study, the United States and Australia are the only countries Thrran pharmaceutical companies of any restrictions on their use of television advertising. He says that the U.S. citizen Vorsh seen up to 16 hours per year of television commercials for medicine, a time much longer than the patient spent with the doctor.
It was not the case before 1997, where he says that the ads Vorsh pharmaceutical, whether television or print, including that required to ensure the announcement of the details of the drug and disease. But today is not to find such details, but in the medical journal advertisements.
The reason for this is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1997 has facilitated the process of advertising on television for pharmaceutical companies.
Vorsh says: "Today the announcement includes a major focus on the danger and directed the consumer to other sources for detailed information. And guidance either to be printed simultaneously with the announcement of the campaign television or a website or a toll free number."
Despite the inability of the patient to obtain medication without prescription, but the message from the announcement is that you should not rely only on doctors to determine the necessary medication to use.
And therefore the patient may be asked the doctor to write a prescription required may happen that the patient gets what he wants a piece if it is not the right drug for him.
Vorsh and Abadi and his team on legislators to change the rules on advertising to force pharmaceutical companies to provide more information about medicine and disease.
The American Medical Association has called on the authorities last year to prevent even a temporary Tsria on ads for medicines that have been adopted recently also urged the Assembly to more control by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on these medications.
In response to what came were considered by the General Research Organization and the U.S. pharmaceutical industry that the rules adopted by the company on its own is sufficient in dealing with television ads targeted to the consumer.
The organization said in a statement: "It is better to be patient and aware of the ads directed to consumers and doctors provide patients with accurate information about disease and treatment options."
But the comments that accompanied the new study indicated that the doctors and men of law specialists agreed that the efforts of companies Aladobh not enough at all.
Says the former commissioner, told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. David Kessler, and Dr. Douglas Levey of the University of California San Francisco that the ads targeted to the consumer does not provide important information about the risks and benefits of medicines. "
As head of Health Research Group, Dr. Sidney Wolfe said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to do more of the effort to suppress the ads that require prescription drugs, including the approval of substantial fines.
Wolff said that what is happening now is that pharmaceutical companies could display ads false and misleading under the immunity resulting from the lack of oversight.
Wolff said that the results of the study is useful because it ten years ago there was no control or research on the ads. But today, people have begun to think about rationing means of conveying information accurately.
Says the author of the study, assistant professor of medicine at the University of California Los Angeles, Dr. Dominique Vorsh: "take advantage of advertising emotion instead of listing information to market the drug. The question here is: Do I have to be buying prescription drugs that require a doctor prescription buying soap?".
The drug companies spent nearly $ 1.9 billion on television advertising in 2005. For more information on advertising strategy used in some advertisements have Vorsh he and his colleagues, given the sample of 38 medication offered an ad on TV between June and July 2004.
Have used corporations Statistics for peak-time television, which gave the ads and the most powerful impact than just repeat broadcast.
Researchers say that 82% of the ads sponsored propaganda based on facts, but few have provided information about the disease, such as causes (26%) and the seriousness of the disease (26%) and the extent of its prevalence (25%).
Has provided 95% of advertising appeals to viewers with an emotional suggested 78% of the advertisements that the use of drugs will increase the social approbation. In 58% of the cases the drug was presented as a significant progress in the therapeutic industry.
The study included research on the ads for drugs Alerja (sensitivity) and Ambyn (anti-insomnia) and Cialis (erectile dysfunction) and other medicines are not taken without a doctor prescription highlight.
According to the study, the United States and Australia are the only countries Thrran pharmaceutical companies of any restrictions on their use of television advertising. He says that the U.S. citizen Vorsh seen up to 16 hours per year of television commercials for medicine, a time much longer than the patient spent with the doctor.
It was not the case before 1997, where he says that the ads Vorsh pharmaceutical, whether television or print, including that required to ensure the announcement of the details of the drug and disease. But today is not to find such details, but in the medical journal advertisements.
The reason for this is that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1997 has facilitated the process of advertising on television for pharmaceutical companies.
Vorsh says: "Today the announcement includes a major focus on the danger and directed the consumer to other sources for detailed information. And guidance either to be printed simultaneously with the announcement of the campaign television or a website or a toll free number."
Despite the inability of the patient to obtain medication without prescription, but the message from the announcement is that you should not rely only on doctors to determine the necessary medication to use.
And therefore the patient may be asked the doctor to write a prescription required may happen that the patient gets what he wants a piece if it is not the right drug for him.
Vorsh and Abadi and his team on legislators to change the rules on advertising to force pharmaceutical companies to provide more information about medicine and disease.
The American Medical Association has called on the authorities last year to prevent even a temporary Tsria on ads for medicines that have been adopted recently also urged the Assembly to more control by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration on these medications.
In response to what came were considered by the General Research Organization and the U.S. pharmaceutical industry that the rules adopted by the company on its own is sufficient in dealing with television ads targeted to the consumer.
The organization said in a statement: "It is better to be patient and aware of the ads directed to consumers and doctors provide patients with accurate information about disease and treatment options."
But the comments that accompanied the new study indicated that the doctors and men of law specialists agreed that the efforts of companies Aladobh not enough at all.
Says the former commissioner, told the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Dr. David Kessler, and Dr. Douglas Levey of the University of California San Francisco that the ads targeted to the consumer does not provide important information about the risks and benefits of medicines. "
As head of Health Research Group, Dr. Sidney Wolfe said the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to do more of the effort to suppress the ads that require prescription drugs, including the approval of substantial fines.
Wolff said that what is happening now is that pharmaceutical companies could display ads false and misleading under the immunity resulting from the lack of oversight.
Wolff said that the results of the study is useful because it ten years ago there was no control or research on the ads. But today, people have begun to think about rationing means of conveying information accurately.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق