The Public effect of Disease Mongering
Researchers: Ronnen Regev Cabir1, Tamar Nevo Gur1
- Emun Hazibur (אמון הציבור)
Background: The consumer public in Israel is exposed to media and advertising content on diseases and medical conditions. Part of this content is important for raising awareness. However, some is defined in the literature as ‘disease mongering’ - a term referring to expanding the scope of treatable diseases and increasing the market for treatment providers. We examined the phenomenon from the consumers’ perspective; therefore, a meaningful parameter in determining whether we are dealing with ‘disease mongering’ is establishing whether the consumers are being misled.
Objectives: Evaluating the implications of exposure to media content and advertising on diseases and medical conditions, and establishing a well-thought-out foundation for decision-makers on the extent of required intervention, and its nature.
Method: 1. Analysis of journalistic coverage on health and diseases, which the public is exposed to;
2. Comparative regulatory review;
3. Questionnaire for primary care physicians;
4. Public opinion poll.
2. Comparative regulatory review;
3. Questionnaire for primary care physicians;
4. Public opinion poll.
Findings: 1. Division of responsibility between relevant regulators in Israel;
2. Low availability of enforcement data in Israel;
3. High frequency of doctor appointments following exposure to media content, most often - unjustified;
4. Physicians believe that ‘disease mongering’ is prevalent mainly in articles;
5. Consumers attribute high-level reliability to online articles on health.
2. Low availability of enforcement data in Israel;
3. High frequency of doctor appointments following exposure to media content, most often - unjustified;
4. Physicians believe that ‘disease mongering’ is prevalent mainly in articles;
5. Consumers attribute high-level reliability to online articles on health.
Conclusions: 1. The division of authority between regulators leaves some types of content unattended, i.e., articles;
2. Insufficient collaboration between the Ministry of Health and the Consumer Protection Authority;
3. Physicians believe the issue should be addressed;
4. Each type of content requires a different regulatory consideration.
2. Insufficient collaboration between the Ministry of Health and the Consumer Protection Authority;
3. Physicians believe the issue should be addressed;
4. Each type of content requires a different regulatory consideration.
Recommendations: 1. Reinforce the Committee for Investigating Public Deception with manpower and enforcement means;
2. Establish a mechanism in the committee for handling complaints;
3. The Consumer Protection Authority should begin addressing published marketing content, define guidelines and enforce;
4. Expand the ‘Choosing Wisely’ model and adapt its content for the public’s use.
2. Establish a mechanism in the committee for handling complaints;
3. The Consumer Protection Authority should begin addressing published marketing content, define guidelines and enforce;
4. Expand the ‘Choosing Wisely’ model and adapt its content for the public’s use.
Research number: R/233/2017
Research end date: 08/2019