The pitch: Cut the bull, doctors want bona fide facts supported by research

By DAVID HOPCROFT*

A year ago I wrote a paper in the New Zealand Medical Journal that critiqued the standard of references used in medical advertising to doctors.

It was simple stuff. I scrutinised 123 references used to support 103 statements in 38 prominent pharmaceutical advertisements in New Zealand medical journals and newspapers.

I found that doctors "are faced with advertising information in widely read professional journals that cite inappropriate or inaccurate references in at least 40 per cent of cases, and cite material published in non-peer reviewed and/or obscure journals in a further significant percentage".

In other words, at least four in 10 of the references used to substantiate claims that attempt to influence doctors prescribing habits were not valid.

The NBR mentioned these findings before they were published in the New Zealand Medical Journal, and had sought comments from industry representatives whose stance was one of disbelief and "we'll wait for the details".

But once the details came out, there followed a deafening silence. No comments from the Advertising Standards Authority, nothing from the Ministry of Health and no mention in the NZ Herald.

No one, it seemed, cared a hoot. The only people who were interested were individual doctors who wrote to me, and the director of the National Reference Center for Bioethics Literature at the University of Georgetown in Washington DC.

So the problem persists, without any apparent attempts by advertisers to change. I opened a publication recently to find a fancy double-page ad making major claims about a new medication, backed up by references that wouldn't pass muster in a second-year university essay.

However, something else has dawned on me over the past year, as I've been listening to doctors: intuitively they realise these ads aren't to be taken seriously.

They say that they just flick past them, glance at them, read one line.

Doctors get about 24kg of print material mailed to them annually. "Flick and bin" is their modus operandi with unsolicited advertising. It seems these ads are good for branding only.

If they want better material, doctors look for it in pharmaceutical product information, MedSafe articles, discussions with pharmaceutical sales reps, and by talking with colleagues and specialists.

So if these large, colourful, clever ads that permeate their journals are not read in any depth, does it matter if statements in the ads refer back to shonky sources?

It certainly should! And people involved in medical advertising need to understand this.

There are some wonderful medications coming through, the products of sophisticated molecular medicine research finally making it to the clinical coalface. Medicines that will make a real difference.

So come on, make the pitch fit the market. No bull, no gimmicks, but rather bona fide statements supported by sound academic research.

In the absence of this, imagery or brand advertising won't sway doctors. Evidence-based material is what the market wants.

Advertising creatives just don't know how to communicate with doctors, and the evidence is published weekly in medical journals.

* Dr David Hopcroft is co-director of medical communications and market research agency MediBank.

* The Pitch is a forum for those working in advertising, marketing, public relations and communications. We welcome lively and topical 500-word contributions.
Email Simon Hendery.