Physician interpretation of information about prescription drugs in scientific publications vs. promotional pieces

Background: Physicians gain knowledge about medical product uses from a variety of information vehicles including FDA-approved labeling, peer-reviewed journal articles, compendia, continuing medical education (CME), and physician-directed promotion. The source of this information, the quality of the information, and environmental pressures such as lack of time may impact perceptions. Objective: The authors tested the effect of three types of information sources (journal abstract, sales aid without graphics, sales aid with graphics), the presence or absence of time pressure to read the information, and two levels of methodological rigor (high, low) on perceptions of study quality, perceptions of product effectiveness and riskiness, and prescribing likelihood. Methods: Primary care physicians (n = 630) were randomly assigned to view one version of a study abstract and then answered questions. Results: Participants who viewed a high-methodological rigor study reported more perceived credibility and importance of the data (ps < .05), and less need for interpreting the study data with caution and less bias than those who viewed a low-rigor study. Those who were not under time pressure to read the stimuli rated the fictitious study description as more credible, rigorous, important, and had more confidence in study data than those who were under time pressure. Participants who had less time to review high-rigor journal abstracts and sales aids with graphics were less likely to agree the study data should be interpreted with caution than doctors who had more time with the stimuli. No effects of source type were observed. Conclusions: The results suggest that prominently disclosing methodological rigor helps the audience form an accurate perception of the presented information. This also further highlights the importance that any promotional communications should be truthful and non-misleading.