The impact of direct-to-consumer television and magazine advertising on antidepressant use
We examine whether exposure to direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) for antidepressant drugs affects individual use of these medications among those suffering from depression. Prior studies have almost exclusively relied on making connections between national or market-level advertising volume/expenditures and national or individual-level usage of medications. This is the first study to: estimate the impact of individual-level exposure to DTCA on individual-level use of antidepressants; estimate the impact of individual-level exposure to television DTCA on individual-level use in any drug class; consider the relative and interactive impact of DTCA in two different media in any drug class; and, consider the heterogeneity of impact among different populations in an econometric framework in the antidepressant market. There are also important limitations to note. Unlike prior market level studies that use monthly data, we are limited to aggregated annual data. Our measures of potential advertising exposure are constructed assuming that media consumption patterns are stable during the year. We are also not able to study the impact of advertising on use of antidepressants for conditions other than depression, such as anxiety disorders. We find that: DTCA impacts antidepressant use in a statistically and economically significant manner; that these effects are present in both television and magazine advertising exposure but do not appear to have interactive effects; are stronger for women than for men in the magazine medium, but are about equally strong for men and women in the TV medium; and, are somewhat stronger for groups suffering from more severe forms of depression. The overall size of the effect is a 6–10 percentage point increase in antidepressant use from being exposed to television advertising; the corresponding magazine effects are between 3 and 4 percentage points.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 31 (2012)
Issue (Month): 5 ()
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/505560|
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Rosemary Avery & Donald Kenkel & Dean R. Lillard & Alan Mathios, 2007. "Private Profits and Public Health: Does Advertising of Smoking Cessation Products Encourage Smokers to Quit?," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115, pages 447-481.
- Leffler, Keith B, 1981. "Persuasion or Information? The Economics of Prescription Drug Advertising," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(1), pages 45-74, April.
- Rosenthal Meredith B. & Berndt Ernst R. & Donohue Julie M. & Epstein Arnold M. & Frank Richard G., 2003. "Demand Effects of Recent Changes in Prescription Drug Promotion," Forum for Health Economics & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 6(1), pages 1-28, January.
- Meredith B. Rosenthal & Ernst R. Berndt & Julie M. Donohue & Arnold M. Epstein & Richard G. Frank, 2003. "Demand Effects of Recent Changes in Prescription Drug Promotion," NBER Chapters,in: Frontiers in Health Policy Research, Volume 6, pages 1-26 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Ackerberg, Daniel A, 2001. "Empirically Distinguishing Informative and Prestige Effects of Advertising," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 32(2), pages 316-333, Summer.
- John E. Calfee & Clifford Winston & Randolph Stempski, 2002. "Direct-to-Consumer Advertising and the Demand for Cholesterol-Reducing Drugs," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 45(S2), pages 673-690.