Document ID: FDA-2015-N-3543-0006
Agency: fda
Document Type: Notice
Title: Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of
Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Quantitative
Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements
Posted Date: 2016-03-18T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 53 (Friday, March 18, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 14855-14859]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-06126]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-3543]

Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office 
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Quantitative 
Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

DATES: Fax written comments on the collection of information by April 
18, 2016.

ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are 
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office 
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, 
FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All 
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-New and 
title ``Quantitative Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television 
Advertisements.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets 
in the heading of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has 
submitted the following proposed collection of information to OMB for 
review and clearance.

Quantitative Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television 
Advertisements OMB Control Number 0910--NEW

I. Background

    Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 
300u(a)(4)) authorizes FDA to conduct research relating to health 
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and 
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(d)(2)(C)) authorizes FDA to 
conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in 
carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
    A previous FDA study found that simple quantitative information 
could be conveyed in direct-to-consumer (DTC) television ads in ways 
that increased consumer's knowledge about the drug (OMB control number 
0910-0663, ``Experimental Study: Presentation of Quantitative 
Effectiveness Information to Consumers in Direct-to-Consumer (DTC) 
Television and Print Advertisements for Prescription Drugs'') (Ref. 1). 
However, this research only tested simple information (e.g., one 
clinical trial, comparison to placebo). Drug information can be much 
more complicated (e.g., complicated endpoints, multiple study arms). 
The

[[Page 14856]]

following studies are designed to address the question of whether 
consumers can use more complicated information when assessing 
prescription drug information in television DTC ads. These studies will 
build on previous research by: (1) Examining more complicated 
quantitative information, (2) examining quantitative information for 
both benefits and risks, and (3) examining how visuals designed to 
represent efficacy interact with quantitative information.
    The objective of this project is to test consumers' understanding 
of quantitative information about prescription drugs in DTC television 
ads. In study 1, we plan to examine experimentally the presence and 
complexity of quantitative benefit and risk information in DTC 
television ads (table 1). We hypothesize that, replicating past 
studies, adding simple quantitative information about benefits and 
risks will lead to increased understanding among consumers. We will 
test whether adding complex quantitative information results in the 
same outcomes as simple quantitative information or whether it is too 
much quantitative information for consumers to process. In study 2, we 
plan to examine experimentally the presence of quantitative benefit 
information and how the ad visually represents efficacy (by having no 
images, images that accurately reflect the improvement in health that 
could be expected with treatment, or images that overstate the 
improvement in health that could be expected with treatment (table 2)). 
We hypothesize that overstated images of improvement will lead 
consumers to overestimate the drug's efficacy; however, adding a 
quantitative claim may moderate this effect. To test these hypotheses, 
we will conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of 
variance (ANOVA). With the sample sizes described in this document, we 
will have sufficient power to detect small-to medium-sized effects in 
each study.
    All participants will be 60 years of age or older. We will exclude 
individuals who work in health care or marketing. We selected a sample 
of participants 60 years and older to increase the likelihood that 
participants will be interested in the fictitious study drug and 
therefore motivated to pay attention to the ad during the study. The 
studies will be conducted with an Internet panel.
    In both studies, participants will be randomly assigned to one 
experimental condition and view the corresponding television ad. The ad 
will be for a fictitious drug to treat cataracts. The ads will be 
created and pretested to ensure that consumers perceive different 
levels of complexity across the ads in study 1 and different levels of 
image accuracy in study 2. ``Pretests for a Study on Quantitative 
Information in Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements'' was 
submitted under OMB control number 0910-0695. After viewing the ad 
twice, participants will complete a questionnaire that assesses 
consumers' understanding of the drug information, their retention of 
the information, and their perceptions of the drug. We will also 
measure covariates such as demographics and numeracy. The 
questionnaires are available upon request.

                                             Table 1--Study 1 Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Quantitative risk claim
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       No..............  Yes: General (e.g.,  Yes: Specific
                                                                          Side effects that    (e.g., Side
                                                                          occur in 10% or      effects that
                                                                          less of people who   occur in [6-10%,
                                                                          take Drug X          1-5%, and less
                                                                          include . . .).      than 1%] of
                                                                                               people who take
                                                                                               Drug X include .
                                                                                               . .).
Quantitative Efficacy Claim.....  No.................
                                  Yes: Single outcome
                                   (e.g., 52% of
                                   people with
                                   cataracts improved
                                   their vision to 20/
                                   40 while taking
                                   Drug X compared to
                                   23% without Drug
                                   X. [starting at an
                                   average baseline
                                   of 20/70]).
                                  Yes: Multiple
                                   outcomes (e.g.,
                                   52% of people with
                                   cataracts improved
                                   their vision to 20/
                                   40 while taking
                                   Drug X compared to
                                   23% without Drug
                                   X. [starting at an
                                   average baseline
                                   of 20/70]. With
                                   Drug X, people
                                   could see an
                                   average of 85
                                   letters on a 100-
                                   letter eye chart,
                                   compared to 73
                                   letters without
                                   Drug X.).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                             Table 2--Study 2 Design
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Images of improvement
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       None............  Accurate             Overstated
                                                                          improvement in       improvement in
                                                                          health conveyed in   health conveyed
                                                                          images.              in images.
Quantitative Benefit Claim......  No
                                  Yes (Single
                                   outcome).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 14857]]

    In the Federal Register of October 13, 2015 (80 FR 61433), FDA 
published a 60-day notice requesting public comment on the proposed 
collection of information. Four public comments were received. Two 
comments called for direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising to 
be banned. These comments are outside the scope of the current project. 
Other comments and their responses follow.
    (Comment 1) The first suggestion was that FDA should research the 
health literacy of approved patient labeling before conducting research 
on DTC television advertising.
    (Response) FDA has a program of research that includes studies on 
both patient labeling and DTC television advertising (Refs. 1 to 3). 
This study extends previous research and addresses issues unique to DTC 
television advertising (e.g., visual representations of efficacy) (Ref. 
1). The public is exposed to information about prescription drugs via 
DTC television advertising and this advertising has a public health 
impact (Refs. 4 and 5). We disagree that there is a need for approved 
patient labeling research to be conducted before we study issues unique 
to DTC television advertising.
    (Comment 2) The second suggestion is to consider that because low 
numeracy individuals are not well-represented in online panels we 
should implement mechanisms to help validate results across health-
literate populations.
    (Response) We agree that numeracy may be a crucial variable in this 
study. We have added a second measure of numeracy (subjective numeracy) 
and a question on health literacy. We will use these measures to 
determine whether and how numeracy and health literacy affect our 
results. If our sample has few individuals with low numeracy, we will 
note this as a limitation.
    (Comment 3) The third suggestion is to use a mixed-method approach, 
recruiting limited-literacy and low socioeconomic participants for in-
person administration of the study and using the Internet panel to 
gather a broad sample.
    (Response) We acknowledge that Internet administration is not 
perfect and have chosen this method to maximize our budget. We will 
permit the survey to be taken on a variety of devices. We are excluding 
phones because the stimuli cannot be fully viewed on a very small 
screen.
    (Comment 4) The fourth suggestion is to use frequencies rather than 
percentages in the questionnaire.
    (Response) A recent review of the literature did not support the 
view that frequencies are more widely understood than percentages (Ref. 
6). This review included two studies conducted in the context of DTC 
advertising (Refs. 1 and 7). Given these findings, we plan to use 
percentages in the questionnaire.
    (Comment 5) The fifth suggestion is to include a single-item health 
literacy question to the screener.
    (Response) We agree this is an important measure and have added it 
to the questionnaire.
    (Comment 6) This comment requests further rationale for the 
selection of an older patient population and its impact on the 
generalizability of study findings to advertisements targeted for 
younger patient populations.
    (Response) Advertising studies often recruit participants who have 
or who are at risk for the medical condition being advertised to 
increase interest in the ad and motivation to pay attention to the ad. 
Older participants are more likely to be at risk for cataracts. In 
addition, older adults use more prescription drugs and watch more 
television than younger adults do (Refs. 8 and 9). We will note that 
the study is not broadly generalizable when we report our findings.
    (Comment 7) This comment suggests including a video compatibility 
test to verify that participants can view the videos and precluding 
participants from taking the survey using a smartphone device.
    (Response) We have added a video compatibility test to the study 
and will preclude participants from using phones.
    (Comment 8) This comment also sought clarification on which stimuli 
from study 1 will be used in study 2.
    (Response) The benefit information in study 2 will be the 
``simple'' claim from study 1. Study 2 will not include quantitative 
risk information. This means that the same ad will be used in the 
``simple quantitative benefit claim/no quantitative risk claim'' 
condition in study 1 and the ``quantitative benefit claim/no images of 
improvement'' condition in study 2.
    (Comment 9) This comment expresses concern that adding complex 
benefit information in study 1 may cause the content to become 
unmanageable and suggests adding study arms with more of fewer risks 
and benefits to assess this.
    (Response) Based on this comment and peer reviewer feedback, we 
will manipulate the complexity of quantitative efficacy claim by adding 
a second benefit outcome. We have revised the study design tables to 
reflect this (see tables 1 and 2). The number of risks will be constant 
but we will manipulate whether and how the frequencies of the risks are 
presented.
    (Comment 10) This comment recommended holding all other aspects 
outside the variable being tested be held constant across the different 
treatments.
    (Response) We agree with this recommendation. We will create one ad 
that will be the basis of all the stimuli. We will manipulate this base 
ad by adding quantitative benefit information, quantitative risk 
information, and/or images of improvement to create the different 
experimental conditions, while leaving other factors constant.
    (Comment 11) This comment recommends using scales with a neutral 
midpoint.
    (Response) There are advantages and disadvantages to including 
midpoints in scales (Refs. 10 and 11). Based on responses from similar 
studies, we have decided to use scales without a midpoint. Instead, we 
have included a ``don't know'' option for some items that may make 
participants' responses easier to interpret than a neutral midpoint 
would.
    (Comment 12) This comment noted that without the stimuli it was 
difficult to tell whether the battery of questions measuring efficacy 
accuracy was redundant or inapplicable.
    (Response) We did not create the stimuli before the public notice 
so that the public and peer review comments, along with cognitive 
interviews and pretesting, could inform the creation of the stimuli. 
Based on peer review, we refined our efficacy claims. We tailored the 
efficacy accuracy items to reflect the new claims. Some of these 
questions are designed to measure participants' gist understanding of 
the drugs' efficacy likelihood and magnitude (Ref. 12). They are not 
redundant with the questions designed to measure participants' verbatim 
understanding of the drugs' efficacy likelihood and magnitude. As in 
previous research, participants in the control condition will not have 
the information to answer all the accuracy questions (Ref. 1). Instead, 
this condition serves as a baseline with which to compare the 
experimental conditions. We added a ``don't know'' option so that these 
participants can report that they do not know the answer.
    (Comment 13) This comment suggested reordering questions so that 
the perception and intention questions appeared before the questions 
about efficacy and risk information.
    (Response) Based on peer review, we moved the gist questions before 
the accuracy questions, but we did not move intentions and perceptions 
before gist and accuracy. We understand the value in getting obtaining 
intentions and perceptions unbiased by the other

[[Page 14858]]

measures. However, we put the gist and accuracy measures first because 
they are our primary measures; therefore, we want to decrease potential 
memory decay and ensure the gist and accuracy measures are not biased.
    (Comment 14) This comment questioned whether three risk claim 
accuracy questions in study 1 were redundant with each other and how 
the stimulus will list frequencies for the risks.
    (Response) We updated table 1 to show how risks will be described 
in each condition. The terms ``least common'' and ``most common'' will 
not be used in the ads. The questions are not redundant. One question 
(previously Q17) asks participants to report the frequency for each 
risk. The other two questions (previously Q20 and Q21) ask participants 
whether they got the ``gist'' of how common the risks are. If 
participants are able to understand the gist of the information, then 
those in the two quantitative risk information conditions should be 
able to report that the most common risks had a frequency of roughly 10 
percent and participants in the specific quantitative risk information 
condition should be able to report that the least common risks had a 
frequency of roughly 1 percent. We will cognitively test and pretest 
these items.
    (Comment 15) This comment suggests adding ``don't know'' options to 
the perceived efficacy and risk questions.
    (Response) We added a ``don't know'' option to the questions that 
ask participants to compare the advertised drug's risks and benefits to 
other treatments.
    FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as 
follows:

                                                 Table 3--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\--Study 1
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample outgo................................          15,130  ..............  ..............  ..........................................  ..............
Number to complete the screener (10%).......           1,513               1           1,513  0.05 (3 minutes)..........................              76
Number eligible for survey (70%)............           1,059  ..............  ..............  ..........................................  ..............
Number to complete the survey (85%).........             900               1             900  0.33 (20 minutes).........................             297
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............           2,413  ..........................................             373
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

                                                 Table 4--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\--Study 2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Number of
                  Activity                       Number of     responses per   Total annual           Average burden per response           Total hours
                                                respondents     respondent       responses
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sample outgo................................          15,130  ..............  ..............  ..........................................  ..............
Number to complete the screener (10%).......           1,513               1           1,513  0.05 (3 minutes)..........................           75.65
Number eligible for survey (70%)............           1,059  ..............  ..............  ..........................................  ..............
Number to complete the survey (85%).........             900               1             900  0.33 (20 minutes).........................             297
                                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...................................  ..............  ..............           2,413  ..........................................          372.65
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with this collection of information.

II. References

    The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets 
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, 
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by 
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday; 
they are also available electronically at http://www.regulations.gov. 
FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document 
publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change 
over time.

1. O'Donoghue, A.C., H.W. Sullivan, K.J. Aikin, et al., ``Presenting 
Efficacy Information in Direct-To-Consumer Prescription Drug 
Advertisements,'' Patient Education and Counseling, 95(2):271-280, 
2014.
2. Boudewyns, V., A.C. O'Donoghue, B. Kelly, et al., ``Influence of 
Patient Medication Information Format on Comprehension and 
Application of Medication Information: A Randomized, Controlled 
Experiment,'' Patient Education and Counseling, 98(12):1592-1599, 
2015.
3. Kish-Doto, J., M. Scales, P. Equino-Medina, et al., ``Preferences 
for Patient Medication Information: What Do Patients Want?'' Journal 
of Health Communication, 19(suppl 2):77-88, 2014.
4. Brownfield, E.D., J.M. Bernhardt, J.L. Phan, et al., ``Direct-To-
Consumer Drug Advertisements on Network Television: An Exploration 
of Quantity, Frequency, and Placement,'' Journal of Health 
Communication, 9(6):491-497, 2004.
5. Niederdeppe, J., S. Byrne, R.J. Avery, et al., ``Direct-To-
Consumer Television Advertising Exposure, Diagnosis With High 
Cholesterol, and Statin Use,'' Journal of General Internal Medicine, 
28(7):886-893, 2013.
6. Zipkin, D.A., C.A. Umscheid, N.L. Keating, et al., ``Evidence-
Based Risk Communication: A Systematic Review,'' Annals of Internal 
Medicine, 161:270-280, 2014.
7. Woloshin, S. and L.M. Schwartz, ``Communicating Data About the 
Benefits and Harms of Treatment: A Randomized Trial,'' Annals of 
Internal Medicine, 155:87-96, 2011.
8. Zhong, W., H. Maradit-Kremers, J.L. St. Sauver, et al., ``Age and 
Sex Patterns of Drug Prescribing in a Defined American Population,'' 
Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 88(7):697-707, 2013.
9. Depp, C.A., D.A. Schkade, W.K. Thompson, et al., ``Age, Affective 
Experience, and Television Use,'' American Journal of Preventive 
Medicine, 39:173-178, 2010.
10. Moors, G., ``Exploring the Effect of a Middle Response Category 
on Response Style in Attitude Measurement,'' Quality & Quantity, 
42(6):779-794, 2008.
11. Sturgis, P., C. Roberts, and P. Smith, ``Middle Alternatives 
Revisited: How the Neither/Nor Response Acts as a Way of Saying ``I 
Don't Know?'' Sociological Methods & Research, 43(1):15-38, 2014.
12. Reyna, V.F., ``How People Make Decisions That Involve Risk: A 
Dual-Process Approach,'' Current Directions in Psychological 
Science, 13:60-66, 2004.

[[Page 14859]]

    Dated: March 14, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-06126 Filed 3-17-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P