MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1997821842 · doi:10.1176/pn.39.13.0390002

Women's Depiction in Drug Ads: Holdover From a Bygone Era?

2004· article· en· W1997821842 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Joan Arehart-Treichel

Notice bibliographique

RevuePsychiatric News · 2004
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiquePharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésDepictionMental healthPsychiatryMedicinePsychologyArtLiterature

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Back to table of contents Previous article Next article Professional NewsFull AccessWomen's Depiction in Drug Ads: Holdover From a Bygone Era?Joan Arehart-TreichelJoan Arehart-TreichelPublished Online:2 Jul 2004https://doi.org/10.1176/pn.39.13.0390002In spite of the expansion of women's roles over the last 20 years, ads for psychotropic drugs in scientific journals often persist in portraying women in traditional settings and roles.A study that led to this finding was conducted by Donna Stewart, M.D., chair of women's health at University Health Network and the University of Toronto in Canada, and colleagues. Results appeared in the April Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease.In their study, Stewart and her colleagues examined how often women and men were portrayed in psychotropic drug ads placed in three psychiatric journals during three different time periods. The journals were the American Journal of Psychiatry, Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, and British Journal of Psychiatry. The study periods were 1981, 1991, and 2001.The proportion of women and men displayed in ads in all three journals in 1981 was about equal, the researchers found. However, the proportion of women had increased to 80 percent in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry in 2001 and to 88 percent in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2001. In contrast, the proportion of women portrayed in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2001 had declined to 40 percent.Trying to impart meaning to the findings, the researchers noted that given that women are known to be more at risk of depression than men, one possibility is that more antidepressant ads are run in these two journals today than in the earlier years and that women are depicted in the ads more often because they are more likely to seek treatment for depression. In fact, the researchers learned, only women were displayed in antidepressant ads in the American Journal of Psychiatry in 2001. But another reason why women appear in more psychotropic drug ads in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry and the American Journal of Psychiatry today, the researchers suspected, may be a form of gender discrimination against women.In fact, when the researchers examined the types of roles in which women and men were cast in the ads in the three journals across the three time spans studied, they found that most of the men were portrayed at work or in professional roles, implying productivity, independence, and a higher socioeconomic status, while most of the women were shown at home, in the garden, in a social situation, or asleep, implying traditional and dependent work roles."These findings," the investigators suggested, "seem to indicate that, despite the great diversification and expansion of women's roles over the last 20 years, there is a consistent tendency in pharmaceutical advertising to represent women submissively (i.e., sleeping) or even in a sexualized manner (i.e., well-dressed, slim, younger, attractive) in traditional settings and roles...."Stewart told Psychiatric News that she hoped clinical psychiatrists will "look beyond the images in pharmaceutical advertisements, which may not accurately reflect the images of many patients suffering from depression or psychosis—multicultural patients, men, the poor, the elderly, the disabled, and the physically unglamorous."An abstract of the study, "Who Is Portrayed in Psychotropic Drug Advertisements?," can be accessed online at by clicking on the April issue and then the article title. ▪ ISSUES NewArchived

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,033
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,112

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,006
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0020,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0040,002
Communication savante0,0070,006
Science ouverte0,0000,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0020,002
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0330,004

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,230
Tête enseignante GPT0,491
Écart entre enseignants0,261 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2004
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePsychiatric NewsMême sujetPharmaceutical industry and healthcareTravaux en français237 207