Do consumers perceive their doctors as influenced by pharmaceutical marketing communications?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose – This paper aims to explore whether and how consumers perceive the impact of pharmaceutical marketing on their own doctor’s prescribing behaviors, and subsequent responses toward their doctor’s advice. Design/methodology/approach – Three experimental studies were conducted. Studies 1 and 2 are based on text-based manipulations and undergraduate student research participants. Study 3 uses image-based manipulations and average adult consumers. Findings – Study 1 demonstrates that consumers can be quite skeptical about their doctor’s motives for prescribing certain brand-name drugs; in particular, consumers can construe doctors as agents of persuasion for prescribed brands. Study 2 shows that this can result not only in choosing generic drugs over prescribed brands but also in opting out of pharmaceuticals altogether by choosing alternatives like natural remedies. Study 3 further demonstrates that these effects can be easily triggered by visual cues in a non-student sample. Originality/value – This research builds on the existing literature on pharmaceutical marketing communications, and extends the theory of persuasion knowledge into healthcare settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".