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.

Communicating by Catcalling: Power Dynamics and Communicative Motivations in Street Harassment

To understand the frequencies and communicative motivations of men engaging in street harassment, men's tolerance of sexual harassment, and the relationship between power and street harassment experiences for both men and women using the frameworks of dyadic power theory and feminist theories, we surveyed 348 undergraduate participants at a university in the Pacific United States. Results indicated that men who believe they have lower power than women were the most likely to report engaging in street harassment. Results also indicated a positive relationship between men's reported tolerance for sexual harassment and men's reports of engaging in street harassment.

Forgive and Forget?: Examining the Influence of Blame and Intentionality on Forgiveness Following Hypothetical Same-Sex Infidelity in the Context of Heterosexual Romantic Relationships

The present study investigated responses to imagined same-sex infidelity committed by a partner in a heterosexual relationship. The motivational theory of infidelity and research on communicative infidelity were used as guiding frameworks for exploring differences in perceptions of blame and intentionality as a result of varying motivations for engaging in same-sex infidelity (i.e., cheating due to attraction, experimentation, sexual preoccupation, sexual depression, sociosexuality, jealousy, vengefulness, or not viewing the infidelity as cheating). It was predicted that greater perceptions of blame and intent would be associated with more negative transgression-related interpersonal motivations (i.e., more revenge and avoidance; less benevolence) and an increased expectation of terminating the relationship due to the partner's same-sex infidelity. Whether these relationships would replicate or differ according to the partner's motive for committing the hypothetical same-sex infidelity was also tested. Results revealed that, in general and across motives, attributions of blame were positively associated with revenge, avoidance, and relationship termination; perceived intentionality was positively associated with avoidance; and blame was negatively associated with benevolence. Furthermore, across most motives, blame was indirectly associated with relationship termination through avoidance and benevolence, and these associations were not moderated by biological sex. These findings and their implications for research on infidelity specifically, and relational functioning more broadly, are discussed.