EVALUATION OF DRUG INFORMATION AS A NOVEL LEARNING TOOL IN PHARMACOLOGY:  GENDER DIFFERENCES IN EVALUATION OF A DRUG ADVERTISEMENT. 

Gail T. Galasko*, Graham A. Patrick, and David J. Steele, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, U.S.A.

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to assess gender differences in the evaluation of a drug advertisement.

Methods

Early in their initial pharmacology course, second-year medical students were assigned to evaluate a drug advertisement of their choosing. Before being given the assignment, and several weeks after its completion, the students were shown a videotaped advertisement for Vytorin®, and asked to evaluate it using a questionnaire. Questions asked included: (a) does the advertisement tell the viewer to see his/her doctor; (b) is the advertisement evidence based; (c) is the drug compared to others in its class.  In addition, students were asked to rate the truthfulness of the advertisement according to the following 5 point scale: 1=very truthful; 2= somewhat truthful; 3= neutral; 4= somewhat misleading; and 5= very misleading.  The pre- and post-assignment responses were divided into 2 groups by gender (24 males [M], 40 females [F]) and analyzed.  Statistical significance was determined using chi-square and t-tests.

Results

For females, there was a significant difference between the pre- and post-assignment questionnaires for (a) and (b) (p<0.05), but not (c).  There was also a difference in pre- and post ratings of the advertisement’s truthfulness for females, with the females coming to see the advertisement as more truthful in the post-rating.  No significant differences were seen for male students. 

Conclusion