Special Coverage

Global Side Effects: Public Knowledge with Ads (US) vs. without (UK) (65)

Ruth Day and Philipp Popp (Duke University)

Summary by Taylor Curley, Digital Content Associate Editor

Annoying Drug Advertisements Are More Helpful Than You Think

In the mid-1980s, the United States Food and Drug Administration made the controversial decision to broadcast information about prescription drugs on direct-to-consumer advertising, such as TV and radio ads. Since then, many have argued that showing advertisements for drugs is gratuitous and beneficial only for drug companies to increase profits. 

Research by Ruth Day and Philipp Popp, however, shows that individuals regularly exposed to drug ads are better informed about the risks and side effects of prescription drugs. 

The researchers compared knowledge of side effects in drugs between participants from the United States, where drug ads are allowed, and those from the United Kingdom, where drug ads are not allowed, by asking them to either generate, recognize, and rate the severity of various side effects.

The results of three experiments show that participants from the US had better knowledge of drug side effects than individuals from the UK. This is particularly true for drugs developed from living organisms, or “biologics,” as shown in the graph below.

The results of the study show that consumers retain information from drug ads. The results also demonstrated how implicit learning (e.g., passively watching or listening to drug ads) could operate in real-life contexts. The next step in their research is to examine countries where drug advertisements are relatively new, such as New Zealand, and measure how general knowledge of drug side effects changes over time.