A recent research piece published in the Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Office of Prescription Drug Promotion (OPDP) research team, Physician interpretation of information about prescription drugs in scientific publications vs. promotional pieces, found that a prominent display of methodological rigor in a study helps the audience form an accurate perception of the information.
In coming to the conclusion, study authors tested the effect of three types of information sources (journal abstract, sales aid without graphics, and sales aid with graphics); the presence (or absence) of time pressure to read the information; and two levels of methodological rigor (high or low) on physician perceptions of study quality, perceptions of product effectiveness and riskiness, and prescribing likelihood. Authors randomly assigned 630 primary care physicians to view one version of a study abstract and then answer questions.
In the study, participants who viewed a high-methodological rigor study reported a greater perceived credibility and importance of the data and less of a need for interpreting the study data with caution and less bias than those who reviewed a low-methodological rigor study. Additionally, those who did not have time pressure rated the study description as more credible, rigorous, important, and had greater confidence in the study data than those who were under time pressure. Physicians who reviewed high-rigor journal abstracts and sales aids with graphics under a time pressure were less likely to agree that the study data should be interpreted with caution than those who had more time.
The study also found a significant difference in perceived rigor between the low- and high-rigor stimuli and that the rigor manipulations were accurately perceived by participants as low-rigor stimuli were rated less rigorous than high-rigor stimuli.
More than one fourth of participants who saw a low-rigor study (28.8%) mentioned wanting more information about the drug, compared to 22.9% of participants that saw a high-rigor study. Additionally, roughly one fifth of participants who viewed a sales aid without graphics (19.9 %) or with graphics (18.3 %) believed the study source was biased compared to 9.8 % who saw a journal abstract. Several participants mentioned being skeptical of all new studies or drugs in their response (15.2 %). Neither the study sponsor nor the authors were explicitly identified in the questionnaire or materials, suggesting that there may be implicit biases or preferences at play, such as rating promotional materials as inherently more biased and a strong preference to review more information, impacting perceptions of prescription drug promotional communications.
The study concluded that prominently disclosing information related to the methodological rigor of a study may help the audience form an accurate perception of the strength of the study and the support for any claims that may appear in promotional communications. Additionally, promotional communications without graphics that seem to be more closely related to study reprints or summaries may be interpreted with less caution by physicians and other healthcare providers than promotional communications that fit the classic expectation of “promotion.”