Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Hearing, Aging, and Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements, 79909-79912 [2015-32251]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2015–N–2163]
Agency Information Collection
Activities; Submission for Office of
Management and Budget Review;
Comment Request; Hearing, Aging,
and Direct-to-Consumer Television
Advertisements
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is announcing
that a proposed collection of
information has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) for review and clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Submit either electronic or
written comments on the collection of
information by January 22, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on
the information collection are received,
OMB recommends that written
comments be faxed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer, FAX:
202–395–7285, or emailed to oira_
submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified with the
OMB control number 0910–New and
title ‘‘Hearing, Aging, and Direct-toConsumer Television Advertisements.’’
Also include the FDA docket number
found in brackets in the heading of this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA
PRA Staff, Office of Operations, Food
and Drug Administration, 8455
Colesville Rd., COLE–14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993–0002, PRAStaff@
fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
I. Background
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507,
FDA has submitted the following
proposed collection of information to
OMB for review and clearance.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Hearing, Aging, and Direct-to-Consumer
Television Advertisements
OMB Control Number 0910—NEW
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public
Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to
conduct research relating to health
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act
(the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(c))
authorizes FDA to conduct research
relating to drugs and other FDA
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
regulated products in carrying out the
provisions of the FD&C Act.
Older adults use a disproportionate
number of prescription drugs (Ref. 1)
and watch more television than other
age groups (Ref. 2). Age-related changes
in hearing are common (Refs. 3–5) and,
depending on their severity, influence
the understanding of speech. Direct-ToConsumer (DTC) television
advertisements (ads) contain large
amounts of complex information about
prescription drug treatments that may
be particularly relevant to a population
that is experiencing some level of
hearing loss. Moreover, much of the
information in these ads is conveyed by
voiceover, meaning that the audio
channel is the only way to receive the
information. Although people with
serious hearing loss may compensate by
using closed captioning (which may or
may not be available for ads) or hearing
aids, some individuals experience the
effects of hearing loss without realizing
that it is the cause and others choose not
to use external compensatory aids (Ref.
6). For these reasons, FDA is proposing
research to investigate how people at
various ages and levels of hearing ability
comprehend DTC ads.
Sponsors of DTC ads cannot control
the hearing abilities of their audiences.
Nonetheless, researchers have identified
several aspects of DTC ads within their
control that influence the understanding
of speech in individuals who experience
aging-related hearing loss. First,
frequency thresholds differ as people
age—that is, older adults are not able to
hear higher frequencies as well (Refs. 7,
8). Second, DTC television ads contain
a risk statement of the most serious and
most common side effects, called ‘‘the
major statement.’’ FDA regulations
require that the major statement must be
included in at least the audio portion of
the ad (Ref. 9). The risks of a medical
product often include highly technical
medical terms that should be
transformed into consumer-friendly
language to convey the risks
appropriately. This is easier in some
cases than in others. In addition, there
are techniques to help reduce the
complexity of the major statement, such
as maintaining active voice, reducing
instances where words need
clarification from other later words in
the broadcast, and using shorter
sentences. Third, television ad spots are
typically bought in increments of 15
seconds, leading to a preponderance of
30- and 60-second ads, and some 75second ads when risk information is
especially dense. In order to fit the
required information into this time
frame, the audio presentation speed may
be adjusted to be faster or slower.
PO 00000
Frm 00093
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
79909
Research has shown that fast speech is
more difficult to understand than slower
speech, even for healthy young adults
(Ref. 10).
Thus, we propose to examine the
effects of three aspects of DTC ads
(voice frequency, complexity of major
statement, and speed of major
statement) on the comprehension of the
ads among four different age groups of
individuals. Because hearing losses
begin to occur as people age, we will
examine a group of middle-aged adults
(40–50 years), young-old adults (60–74
years), and old-old adults (75+ years),
and a group of young adults (18–25
years) as a control. The use of young
adults as a control group is common in
studies of age changes in memory,
cognition, and hearing (Refs. 11–14). We
expect a progression of hearing loss
across the lifespan, but that is not the
focus of this study. Our primary
outcomes will be verbatim and gist
memory, and confidence in memory
judgments, but we will also seek to
apply findings from previous studies
showing age changes in hearing ability
(Refs. 15, 16) to the particular situation
of DTC ad viewing.
It is important to note that despite
hearing and cognitive losses, older
adults generally use linguistic context
well. That is, they are as good as or even
better than younger adults at using
context to determine what they are
hearing. They are also skilled at using
the intonation of words, which words
are stressed, where pauses occur, and
how words are lengthened before
pauses, all components of something
called the prosody of language (Ref. 17).
Thus, even though older adults
generally perform worse than younger
adults with rapid speech, older adult
recall of sentences is still relatively
high, at 80 percent, presumably because
older adults use linguistic context.
Moreover, to approximate real DTC ads,
participants will view an ad that has a
typical amount of superimposed text,
some of which may repeat the
information in the audio. Our task thus
involves viewing realistic DTC ads,
which provide more context than lists of
unrelated words or sentences, as often
found in laboratory experiments. Thus,
it is an open question whether hearing
loss will impede the comprehension of
DTC ads or whether the ability to make
use of context will counteract these
decrements across the lifespan.
II. General Research Questions
1. How do hearing and cognitive
declines in older adults affect
comprehension of DTC television ads,
and the major statement in particular?
E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM
23DEN1
79910
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Notices
2. How do the frequency, speed, and
complexity of the major statement
influence the comprehension of the
major statement and DTC ads as a
whole?
3. How do hearing and cognitive
declines interact with the frequency,
speed, and complexity of the major
statement to affect the comprehension of
DTC ads?
III. Design
To test these research questions, we
will examine four groups of adults and
manipulate three variables as shown in
table 1.
TABLE 1
Voiceover frequency
Male
(low frequency)
Organization of major
statement
Age
Female
(high frequency)
Organization of major
statement
Speed
Total
Simple
Young Adults (18–25) ...................................................
Middle-Aged (40–50) ....................................................
Young-Older (60–75) ....................................................
Old-Older (OO; 75+) .....................................................
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Total .......................................................................
Pretesting will take place before the
main study to evaluate the hearing
assessment procedures and
questionnaire measures used in the
main study. We will recruit adults who
fall into one of four age brackets shown
in table 1. We will exclude individuals
who work in healthcare or marketing
settings because their knowledge and
experiences may not reflect those of the
average consumer. A priori power
analyses revealed that we need 640
participants for the pretest to obtain 80
percent power to detect a small effect
size, and 1,056 participants for the main
study to obtain 90 percent power to
detect a small effect size. Data collection
will take place in person.
For the pretest and main study,
within each age group, participants will
be randomly assigned to one of eight
experimental conditions in a 2 (speed)
× 2 (frequency) × 2 (complexity) design,
as depicted in table 1. The study will
include audiometric measurement of
individual hearing ability to help
determine if hearing declines account
for any age group differences in reported
comprehension or retention of ad
information. During the scheduled
appointment time, participants will
receive a complete audiometric test
performed by audiologists from the
University of North Carolina Hearing
and Communication Center, watch a
fictitious DTC television ad twice, and
answer questions in a survey.
Participation is estimated to take
approximately 45 minutes.
Questionnaire measures are designed
to assess, for both risk and benefit
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
Low Speed
High Speed
Low Speed
High Speed
Low Speed
High Speed
Low Speed
High Speed
Simple
Complex
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
.......................
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
33
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
132
...........................................
264
264
264
264
1,056
information, verbatim memory,
comprehension, gist memory, and
confidence in memory and
comprehension judgments. The draft
questionnaire is available upon request.
To examine differences between
experimental conditions, we will
conduct inferential statistical tests such
as analysis of variance (ANOVA).
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d),
FDA published a 60-day notice for
public comment in the Federal Register
of June 25, 2015 (80 FR 36545). Two
comments were received. We will
address the issues raised in each
comment subsequently, beginning with
those of AbbVie.
(Comment 1) The Agency should
place research results in the context that
older adults are diverse and increasingly
involved in new technologies.
(Response 1) We agree that older
adults are not homogenous. Regarding
our focus on television ads, the fact that
older people are increasingly able to
look at advertisements online does not
eliminate the fact that many continue to
be exposed to television advertising and
that advertising is not always presented
with closed-captioning. We will ensure
that we frame our research results in the
proper context.
(Comment 2) A bias may exist in
asking survey participants to selfdeclare ‘‘a hearing loss’’ as hearing loss
can be viewed as a negative
consequence/indicator of aging. Thus,
those in older age groups may
underestimate their true hearing loss as
well as the need for some type of
hearing aid or assistance.
PO 00000
Complex
Frm 00094
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
(Response 2) We will not rely solely
on self-reported hearing loss. We have
arranged for trained audiologists to
conduct in-person audiological
assessments with validated approaches
as well.
(Comment 3) As the Agency plans to
test multiple variables and age groups,
it is important to test these variables
independently; testing only in
combination with other variables or
aggregating across age groups or
variables may mask true drivers.
Individual cells with a sample size of 33
are too small to compare to other
individual cells. A minimum of 50 is
necessary to understand individual
variables within and across age groups.
(Response 3) We are aware of no
statistical or research standard that
specifies that groups must contain 50
individuals. We conducted power
analyses to determine that 33
individuals per cell is adequate and
statistically defensible for our study
goals.
(Comment 4) The Introduction and
Debriefing state that the study ‘‘involves
information about a drug that is not yet
available for sale.’’ However, survey
questions 8, 10, 18, and 30 refer to
respondents having access to the drug
with verbiage such as ‘‘even if you have
never taken the drug,’’ ‘‘ask the doctor
to prescribe Drug X,’’ and ‘‘have you
seen any advertising for Drug X before
today.’’ Yet none of these could happen
if Drug X is not yet available for sale.
(Response 4) We acknowledge that we
are posing hypothetical possibilities in
some questions that respondents should
E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM
23DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Notices
not have previously experienced. We
have changed the introduction to
reference ‘‘advertising for a new
product’’ rather than ‘‘information about
a drug that is not yet available for sale.’’
However, using language such as ‘‘even
if you have never taken the drug’’ will
assure respondents that their answers
are welcome even if they do not have
direct experience with the drug. The
question about asking the doctor to
prescribe the drug measures behavioral
intentions, not actual behavior related to
the drug. The question asking whether
they have seen an ad for the drug will
allow us to capture false reporting
tendencies.
(Comment 5) Question 13 refers to
‘‘claims’’. We suspect ‘‘claim’’ is not as
readily understood by consumers as is
the more general term ‘‘information’’
used in Question 17. Also, there are
only minor differences in the wording of
two recognition choices for Questions
13a vs. 13b; was this intended?
(Response 5) Thank you for your close
review of the questionnaire. The two ad
versions (simple and complex) are
designed to include the same
information but stated differently. Thus,
these two questions (then 13a and 13b;
now 14a and 14b) should be similar in
nature and only two of the sub-items are
stated differently (#2 and #4).
Participants will see either question 14a
or 14b depending on their experimental
condition.
The next responses address issues
raised by Eli Lilly and Company.
(Comment 6) What are the objectives
of the pretest? The proposed sample size
for the pretest (n = 640) appears
excessive to test the procedural flow
and survey procedures.
(Response 6) The pretest will be used
to assess whether the instrument as a
whole as well as individual sections
work equally well across respondent
groups (e.g., age). In addition, the
pretest will include manipulation
checks as a main function of the task.
The sample size for the pretest (640
participants equally split across the four
age groups) was determined based on an
assumption of a need for 80 percent
power with an alpha of 0.10 to detect a
small effect size. With eight
experimental conditions across four age
groups, the calculation resulted in a
need for 20 individuals per cell, or 640
total participants.
(Comment 7) The age groups selected
are logical, but why are people aged 51–
59 excluded and why are 18–25 year
olds selected as the control? ‘‘Although
18–25 year olds as a control group might
be common in studies of age changes in
memory and hearing, this age group
does not seem as relevant for
pharmaceutical advertisements about
cholesterol lowering drugs.’’ Also, the
age group of 60–75 should be capped at
74 to make sure the groups are mutually
exclusive.
(Response 7) We agree that there is a
likely slow progression of age-related
hearing loss across the lifespan and if
our focus was on this progression, we
would want to include 50–59 year olds.
The approach we are taking will ensure
that we can see contrasts between
younger and older people. We also have
a middle-aged group to see whether any
contrast between the youngest and
oldest groups appears to be relatively
linear or is curvilinear. Including the
50–59 year age group would not add
substantial information to this design,
although we do acknowledge that we
will not be able to address when decline
occurs if it appears to drop dramatically
from our middle-aged group to our
young-older age group.
We are including participants
between 18–25 years as a baseline for
our measurement of hearing ability, as
that is an integral part of this research.
The entire sample will be drawn from
the general population, and although
there may be distinct differences in
potential interest in the advertised drug,
we feel the addition of this younger
group is worth measurement. We have
included a question to assess whether
participants have been diagnosed with
high cholesterol and can use that as a
proxy for interest, regardless of age.
Thank you for pointing out the need to
cap the young-old age group at 74 rather
than 75 to ensure the groups are
mutually exclusive.
(Comment 8) We advise caution in
reporting results for individual cells
(e.g., 40–50 year old respondents who
see an ad with a male voice, simple
statement, low speed) due to the low
sample size (n = 33). We recommend
excluding results for a sample that has
fewer than 50 respondents.
79911
(Response 8) We are aware of no
statistical or research standard that
specifies that groups must contain 50
individuals. We conducted power
analyses to determine that 33
individuals per cell is adequate and
statistically defensible for our study
goals.
(Comment 9) Because the Summary
Brief of the project does not adequately
provide details regarding the individual
ads to be tested, we seek clarification on
whether multiple ads will be tested and
the variability of ad content. With
greater variability of the ads tested,
there is potential for a new source of
bias to be introduced into the study.
(Response 9) We agree that extraneous
variability should be kept to a
minimum. For this study, the same base
ad will be manipulated such that all else
remains constant except for the gender
of the voiceover announcer, the
complexity of the risk information, and
the speed at which it is stated. The
visuals will be as similar as possible
except for minimal differences in length
of time on screen to account for the
different lengths of the voiceover. The
same male and female voice actors will
record all variations of the ad.
IV. External Reviewers
In addition to public comment, Office
of Prescription Drug Promotion solicited
peer-review comments from academic
researchers in fields relevant to the
communication of DTC prescription
drug information. We received
responses and incorporated the thoughts
of the following individuals:
Dr. Susan Blalock, University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill, School of
Pharmacy
Dr. Robert McKeever, University of South
Carolina, School of Journalism and Mass
Communications
To examine differences between
experimental conditions, we will
conduct inferential statistical tests such
as analysis of variance (ANOVA). With
the sample size described in table 2, we
will have sufficient power to detect
small-to-medium sized effects in the
main study.
FDA estimates the burden of this
collection of information as follows:
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1
Number of
respondents
Activity
Cognitive Interview screener .......................................
Cognitive Interviews .....................................................
Pretest screener ...........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Number of responses per
respondent
96
9
1,280
Frm 00095
Fmt 4703
1
1
1
Sfmt 4703
Total annual
responses
96
9
1,280
E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM
Average burden per
response
0.08 (5 minutes)
1 (60 minutes)
0.08 (5 minutes)
23DEN1
Total hours
8
9
102
79912
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Notices
TABLE 2—ESTIMATED ANNUAL REPORTING BURDEN 1—Continued
Number of
respondents
Activity
Number of responses per
respondent
Total annual
responses
Average burden per
response
Total hours
Pretest ..........................................................................
Main Study Screener ...................................................
Main Study ...................................................................
640
2,112
1,056
1
1
1
640
2,112
1,056
0.75 (45 minutes)
0.08 (5 minutes)
0.75 (45 minutes)
480
169
792
Total ......................................................................
5,193
1
5,193
................................
1,560
1 There
are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with the collection of information.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
V. References
The following references are on
display in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA–305), Food and Drug
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm.
1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are
available for viewing by interested
persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Monday through Friday; they are also
available electronically at https://
www.regulations.gov. FDA has verified
the Web site addresses, as of the date
this document publishes in the Federal
Register, but Web sites are subject to
change over time.
1. Zhong W., H. Maradit-Kremers, J.L. St.
Sauver, et al., ‘‘Age and Sex Patterns of
Drug Prescribing in a Defined American
Population.’’ Mayo Clinic Proceedings.
88(7):697–707, 2013.
2. Depp C.A., D.A. Schkade, W.K. Thompson,
D.V. Jeste. ‘‘Age, Affective Experience,
and Television Use.’’ American Journal
of Preventative Medicine. 39:173–8,
2010.
3. Agrawal Y., E.A. Platz, J.K. Niparko.
‘‘Prevalence of Hearing Loss and
Differences by Demographic
Characteristics Among US Adults.’’
Archives of Internal Medicine.
168(14):1522–30, 2008.
4. Cruickshanks K.J., T.L. Wiley, T.S. Tweed,
et al., ‘‘Prevalence of Hearing Loss in
Older Adults in Beaver Dam,
Wisconsin.’’ American Journal of
Epidemiology. 148(9):879–86, 1998.
5. Lin FR, R. Thorpe, S. Gordon-Salant, L.
Ferrucci. ‘‘Hearing Loss Prevalence and
Risk Factors Among Older Adults in the
United States.’’ The Journals of
Gerontology Series A: Biological
Sciences and Medical Sciences.
66A(5):582–90, 2011.
6. Garstecki DC, S.F. Erler. ‘‘Hearing Loss,
Control, and Demographic Factors
Influencing Hearing Aid Use Among
Older Adults.’’ Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research.
41:527–37, 1998.
7. Gates G.A., J.C. Cooper. ‘‘Incidence of
Hearing Decline in the Elderly.’’ Acta
Oto-laryngol. 111:240–8, 1991.
8. Humes L.E. ‘‘Speech Understanding in the
Elderly.’’ Journal of the American
Academy of Audiology. 7:161–7, 1996.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Code
of Federal Regulations. Prescription drug
advertisements, 21 CFR Sect. 202.1.
2013. (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/
scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
18:05 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
CFRSearch.cfm?fr=202.1)
10. Wingfield A., L.W. Poon, L. Lombardi, D.
Lowe. ‘‘Speed of Processing in Normal
Aging: Effects of Speech Rate, Linguistic
Structure, and Processing Time.’’ The
Journals of Gerontology. 40(5):579–85,
1985.
11. Kramer A.F., S. Hahn, D. Gopher. ‘‘Task
Coordination and Aging: Explorations of
Executive Control Processes in the Task
Switching Paradigm.’’ Acta
Psychologica. 101:339–78, 1999.
12. Naveh-Benjamin M., J. Guez, A. Kilb, S.
Reedy. ‘‘The Associative Memory Deficit
of Older Adults: Further Support Using
Face-Name Associations.’’ Psychology
and Aging. 19(3):541–6, 2004.
13. Sommers M.S., N. Tye-Murray, B. Spehar.
‘‘Auditory-Visual Speech Perception and
Auditory-Visual Enhancement in
Normal-Hearing Younger and Older
Adults.’’ Ear and Hearing. 26(3):263–75,
2005.
14. Watson J.M., K.B. McDermott, D.A.
Balota. ‘‘Attempting to Avoid False
Memories in the Deese/RoedigerMcDermott Paradigm: Assessing the
Combined Influence of Practice and
Warnings in Young and Old Adults.’’
Memory and Cognition. 32(1):135–41,
2004.
15. Gates G.A., M.P. Feeney, D. Mills. ‘‘CrossSectional Age-Changes of Hearing in the
Elderly.’’ Ear and Hearing. 29(6):865–74,
2008.
16. Morrell C.H., S. Gordon-Salant, J.D.
Pearson, L.J. Brant, J.L. Fozard. ‘‘Ageand Gender-Specific Reference Ranges
for Hearing Level and Longitudinal
Changes in Hearing Level.’’ Journal of
the Acoustical Society of America.
100(4)Pt. 1:1949–67, 1996.
17. Cutler A., D. Dahan, W. van Donselaar.
‘‘Prosody in the Comprehension of
Spoken Language: A Literature Review.’’
Language and Speech. 40(2):141–201,
1997.
Dated: December 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–32251 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
PO 00000
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA–2012–N–0873]
Agency Information Collection
Activities: Proposed Collection;
Comment Request; Bar Code Label
Requirement for Human Drug and
Biological Products; Correction
AGENCY:
Food and Drug Administration,
HHS.
ACTION:
Notice; correction.
The Food and Drug
Administration (FDA) is correcting a
notice entitled ‘‘Agency Information
Collection Activities: Proposed
Collection; Comment Request; Bar Code
Label Requirement for Human Drug and
Biological Products’’ that appeared in
the Federal Register of December 15,
2015 (80 FR 77637). The document
solicited comments on the bar code
label requirements for human drug and
biological products. The document was
published with an incorrect docket
number. This document corrects that
error.
SUMMARY:
Lisa
Granger, Office of Policy and Planning,
Food and Drug Administration, 10903
New Hampshire Ave., Bldg. 32, rm.
3330, Silver Spring, MD 20993–0002,
301–796–9115.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
In the
Federal Register of Tuesday, December
15, 2015, in FR Doc. 2015–31402, the
following correction is made:
1. On page 77637, in the second
column, the docket number is corrected
to read FDA–2012–N–0873.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Dated: December 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015–32252 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164–01–P
Frm 00096
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\23DEN1.SGM
23DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 79909-79912]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-32251]
[[Page 79909]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
[Docket No. FDA-2015-N-2163]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Submission for Office
of Management and Budget Review; Comment Request; Hearing, Aging, and
Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a
proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Submit either electronic or written comments on the collection
of information by January 22, 2016.
ADDRESSES: To ensure that comments on the information collection are
received, OMB recommends that written comments be faxed to the Office
of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attn: FDA Desk Officer,
FAX: 202-395-7285, or emailed to oira_submission@omb.eop.gov. All
comments should be identified with the OMB control number 0910-New and
title ``Hearing, Aging, and Direct-to-Consumer Television
Advertisements.'' Also include the FDA docket number found in brackets
in the heading of this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations,
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver
Spring, MD 20993-0002, PRAStaff@fda.hhs.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
In compliance with 44 U.S.C. 3507, FDA has submitted the following
proposed collection of information to OMB for review and clearance.
Hearing, Aging, and Direct-to-Consumer Television Advertisements
OMB Control Number 0910--NEW
Section 1701(a)(4) of the Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C.
300u(a)(4)) authorizes the FDA to conduct research relating to health
information. Section 1003(d)(2)(C) of the Federal Food, Drug, and
Cosmetic Act (the FD&C Act) (21 U.S.C. 393(b)(2)(c)) authorizes FDA to
conduct research relating to drugs and other FDA regulated products in
carrying out the provisions of the FD&C Act.
Older adults use a disproportionate number of prescription drugs
(Ref. 1) and watch more television than other age groups (Ref. 2). Age-
related changes in hearing are common (Refs. 3-5) and, depending on
their severity, influence the understanding of speech. Direct-To-
Consumer (DTC) television advertisements (ads) contain large amounts of
complex information about prescription drug treatments that may be
particularly relevant to a population that is experiencing some level
of hearing loss. Moreover, much of the information in these ads is
conveyed by voiceover, meaning that the audio channel is the only way
to receive the information. Although people with serious hearing loss
may compensate by using closed captioning (which may or may not be
available for ads) or hearing aids, some individuals experience the
effects of hearing loss without realizing that it is the cause and
others choose not to use external compensatory aids (Ref. 6). For these
reasons, FDA is proposing research to investigate how people at various
ages and levels of hearing ability comprehend DTC ads.
Sponsors of DTC ads cannot control the hearing abilities of their
audiences. Nonetheless, researchers have identified several aspects of
DTC ads within their control that influence the understanding of speech
in individuals who experience aging-related hearing loss. First,
frequency thresholds differ as people age--that is, older adults are
not able to hear higher frequencies as well (Refs. 7, 8). Second, DTC
television ads contain a risk statement of the most serious and most
common side effects, called ``the major statement.'' FDA regulations
require that the major statement must be included in at least the audio
portion of the ad (Ref. 9). The risks of a medical product often
include highly technical medical terms that should be transformed into
consumer-friendly language to convey the risks appropriately. This is
easier in some cases than in others. In addition, there are techniques
to help reduce the complexity of the major statement, such as
maintaining active voice, reducing instances where words need
clarification from other later words in the broadcast, and using
shorter sentences. Third, television ad spots are typically bought in
increments of 15 seconds, leading to a preponderance of 30- and 60-
second ads, and some 75-second ads when risk information is especially
dense. In order to fit the required information into this time frame,
the audio presentation speed may be adjusted to be faster or slower.
Research has shown that fast speech is more difficult to understand
than slower speech, even for healthy young adults (Ref. 10).
Thus, we propose to examine the effects of three aspects of DTC ads
(voice frequency, complexity of major statement, and speed of major
statement) on the comprehension of the ads among four different age
groups of individuals. Because hearing losses begin to occur as people
age, we will examine a group of middle-aged adults (40-50 years),
young-old adults (60-74 years), and old-old adults (75+ years), and a
group of young adults (18-25 years) as a control. The use of young
adults as a control group is common in studies of age changes in
memory, cognition, and hearing (Refs. 11-14). We expect a progression
of hearing loss across the lifespan, but that is not the focus of this
study. Our primary outcomes will be verbatim and gist memory, and
confidence in memory judgments, but we will also seek to apply findings
from previous studies showing age changes in hearing ability (Refs. 15,
16) to the particular situation of DTC ad viewing.
It is important to note that despite hearing and cognitive losses,
older adults generally use linguistic context well. That is, they are
as good as or even better than younger adults at using context to
determine what they are hearing. They are also skilled at using the
intonation of words, which words are stressed, where pauses occur, and
how words are lengthened before pauses, all components of something
called the prosody of language (Ref. 17). Thus, even though older
adults generally perform worse than younger adults with rapid speech,
older adult recall of sentences is still relatively high, at 80
percent, presumably because older adults use linguistic context.
Moreover, to approximate real DTC ads, participants will view an ad
that has a typical amount of superimposed text, some of which may
repeat the information in the audio. Our task thus involves viewing
realistic DTC ads, which provide more context than lists of unrelated
words or sentences, as often found in laboratory experiments. Thus, it
is an open question whether hearing loss will impede the comprehension
of DTC ads or whether the ability to make use of context will
counteract these decrements across the lifespan.
II. General Research Questions
1. How do hearing and cognitive declines in older adults affect
comprehension of DTC television ads, and the major statement in
particular?
[[Page 79910]]
2. How do the frequency, speed, and complexity of the major
statement influence the comprehension of the major statement and DTC
ads as a whole?
3. How do hearing and cognitive declines interact with the
frequency, speed, and complexity of the major statement to affect the
comprehension of DTC ads?
III. Design
To test these research questions, we will examine four groups of
adults and manipulate three variables as shown in table 1.
Table 1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Voiceover frequency
--------------------------------------------
Male (low frequency) Female (high
---------------------- frequency)
Age Speed Organization of ---------------------- Total
major statement Organization of
---------------------- major statement
----------------------
Simple Complex Simple Complex
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Young Adults (18-25).............. Low Speed............ 33 33 33 33 132
High Speed........... 33 33 33 33 132
Middle-Aged (40-50)............... Low Speed............ 33 33 33 33 132
High Speed........... 33 33 33 33 132
Young-Older (60-75)............... Low Speed............ 33 33 33 33 132
High Speed........... 33 33 33 33 132
Old-Older (OO; 75+)............... Low Speed............ 33 33 33 33 132
High Speed........... 33 33 33 33 132
------------------------------------------------------
Total......................... ..................... 264 264 264 264 1,056
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pretesting will take place before the main study to evaluate the
hearing assessment procedures and questionnaire measures used in the
main study. We will recruit adults who fall into one of four age
brackets shown in table 1. We will exclude individuals who work in
healthcare or marketing settings because their knowledge and
experiences may not reflect those of the average consumer. A priori
power analyses revealed that we need 640 participants for the pretest
to obtain 80 percent power to detect a small effect size, and 1,056
participants for the main study to obtain 90 percent power to detect a
small effect size. Data collection will take place in person.
For the pretest and main study, within each age group, participants
will be randomly assigned to one of eight experimental conditions in a
2 (speed) x 2 (frequency) x 2 (complexity) design, as depicted in table
1. The study will include audiometric measurement of individual hearing
ability to help determine if hearing declines account for any age group
differences in reported comprehension or retention of ad information.
During the scheduled appointment time, participants will receive a
complete audiometric test performed by audiologists from the University
of North Carolina Hearing and Communication Center, watch a fictitious
DTC television ad twice, and answer questions in a survey.
Participation is estimated to take approximately 45 minutes.
Questionnaire measures are designed to assess, for both risk and
benefit information, verbatim memory, comprehension, gist memory, and
confidence in memory and comprehension judgments. The draft
questionnaire is available upon request.
To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will
conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA).
In accordance with 5 CFR 1320.8(d), FDA published a 60-day notice
for public comment in the Federal Register of June 25, 2015 (80 FR
36545). Two comments were received. We will address the issues raised
in each comment subsequently, beginning with those of AbbVie.
(Comment 1) The Agency should place research results in the context
that older adults are diverse and increasingly involved in new
technologies.
(Response 1) We agree that older adults are not homogenous.
Regarding our focus on television ads, the fact that older people are
increasingly able to look at advertisements online does not eliminate
the fact that many continue to be exposed to television advertising and
that advertising is not always presented with closed-captioning. We
will ensure that we frame our research results in the proper context.
(Comment 2) A bias may exist in asking survey participants to self-
declare ``a hearing loss'' as hearing loss can be viewed as a negative
consequence/indicator of aging. Thus, those in older age groups may
underestimate their true hearing loss as well as the need for some type
of hearing aid or assistance.
(Response 2) We will not rely solely on self-reported hearing loss.
We have arranged for trained audiologists to conduct in-person
audiological assessments with validated approaches as well.
(Comment 3) As the Agency plans to test multiple variables and age
groups, it is important to test these variables independently; testing
only in combination with other variables or aggregating across age
groups or variables may mask true drivers. Individual cells with a
sample size of 33 are too small to compare to other individual cells. A
minimum of 50 is necessary to understand individual variables within
and across age groups.
(Response 3) We are aware of no statistical or research standard
that specifies that groups must contain 50 individuals. We conducted
power analyses to determine that 33 individuals per cell is adequate
and statistically defensible for our study goals.
(Comment 4) The Introduction and Debriefing state that the study
``involves information about a drug that is not yet available for
sale.'' However, survey questions 8, 10, 18, and 30 refer to
respondents having access to the drug with verbiage such as ``even if
you have never taken the drug,'' ``ask the doctor to prescribe Drug
X,'' and ``have you seen any advertising for Drug X before today.'' Yet
none of these could happen if Drug X is not yet available for sale.
(Response 4) We acknowledge that we are posing hypothetical
possibilities in some questions that respondents should
[[Page 79911]]
not have previously experienced. We have changed the introduction to
reference ``advertising for a new product'' rather than ``information
about a drug that is not yet available for sale.'' However, using
language such as ``even if you have never taken the drug'' will assure
respondents that their answers are welcome even if they do not have
direct experience with the drug. The question about asking the doctor
to prescribe the drug measures behavioral intentions, not actual
behavior related to the drug. The question asking whether they have
seen an ad for the drug will allow us to capture false reporting
tendencies.
(Comment 5) Question 13 refers to ``claims''. We suspect ``claim''
is not as readily understood by consumers as is the more general term
``information'' used in Question 17. Also, there are only minor
differences in the wording of two recognition choices for Questions 13a
vs. 13b; was this intended?
(Response 5) Thank you for your close review of the questionnaire.
The two ad versions (simple and complex) are designed to include the
same information but stated differently. Thus, these two questions
(then 13a and 13b; now 14a and 14b) should be similar in nature and
only two of the sub-items are stated differently (#2 and #4).
Participants will see either question 14a or 14b depending on their
experimental condition.
The next responses address issues raised by Eli Lilly and Company.
(Comment 6) What are the objectives of the pretest? The proposed
sample size for the pretest (n = 640) appears excessive to test the
procedural flow and survey procedures.
(Response 6) The pretest will be used to assess whether the
instrument as a whole as well as individual sections work equally well
across respondent groups (e.g., age). In addition, the pretest will
include manipulation checks as a main function of the task. The sample
size for the pretest (640 participants equally split across the four
age groups) was determined based on an assumption of a need for 80
percent power with an alpha of 0.10 to detect a small effect size. With
eight experimental conditions across four age groups, the calculation
resulted in a need for 20 individuals per cell, or 640 total
participants.
(Comment 7) The age groups selected are logical, but why are people
aged 51-59 excluded and why are 18-25 year olds selected as the
control? ``Although 18-25 year olds as a control group might be common
in studies of age changes in memory and hearing, this age group does
not seem as relevant for pharmaceutical advertisements about
cholesterol lowering drugs.'' Also, the age group of 60-75 should be
capped at 74 to make sure the groups are mutually exclusive.
(Response 7) We agree that there is a likely slow progression of
age-related hearing loss across the lifespan and if our focus was on
this progression, we would want to include 50-59 year olds. The
approach we are taking will ensure that we can see contrasts between
younger and older people. We also have a middle-aged group to see
whether any contrast between the youngest and oldest groups appears to
be relatively linear or is curvilinear. Including the 50-59 year age
group would not add substantial information to this design, although we
do acknowledge that we will not be able to address when decline occurs
if it appears to drop dramatically from our middle-aged group to our
young-older age group.
We are including participants between 18-25 years as a baseline for
our measurement of hearing ability, as that is an integral part of this
research. The entire sample will be drawn from the general population,
and although there may be distinct differences in potential interest in
the advertised drug, we feel the addition of this younger group is
worth measurement. We have included a question to assess whether
participants have been diagnosed with high cholesterol and can use that
as a proxy for interest, regardless of age. Thank you for pointing out
the need to cap the young-old age group at 74 rather than 75 to ensure
the groups are mutually exclusive.
(Comment 8) We advise caution in reporting results for individual
cells (e.g., 40-50 year old respondents who see an ad with a male
voice, simple statement, low speed) due to the low sample size (n =
33). We recommend excluding results for a sample that has fewer than 50
respondents.
(Response 8) We are aware of no statistical or research standard
that specifies that groups must contain 50 individuals. We conducted
power analyses to determine that 33 individuals per cell is adequate
and statistically defensible for our study goals.
(Comment 9) Because the Summary Brief of the project does not
adequately provide details regarding the individual ads to be tested,
we seek clarification on whether multiple ads will be tested and the
variability of ad content. With greater variability of the ads tested,
there is potential for a new source of bias to be introduced into the
study.
(Response 9) We agree that extraneous variability should be kept to
a minimum. For this study, the same base ad will be manipulated such
that all else remains constant except for the gender of the voiceover
announcer, the complexity of the risk information, and the speed at
which it is stated. The visuals will be as similar as possible except
for minimal differences in length of time on screen to account for the
different lengths of the voiceover. The same male and female voice
actors will record all variations of the ad.
IV. External Reviewers
In addition to public comment, Office of Prescription Drug
Promotion solicited peer-review comments from academic researchers in
fields relevant to the communication of DTC prescription drug
information. We received responses and incorporated the thoughts of the
following individuals:
Dr. Susan Blalock, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill,
School of Pharmacy
Dr. Robert McKeever, University of South Carolina, School of
Journalism and Mass Communications
To examine differences between experimental conditions, we will
conduct inferential statistical tests such as analysis of variance
(ANOVA). With the sample size described in table 2, we will have
sufficient power to detect small-to-medium sized effects in the main
study.
FDA estimates the burden of this collection of information as
follows:
Table 2--Estimated Annual Reporting Burden \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Activity Number of responses per Total annual Average burden per Total hours
respondents respondent responses response
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cognitive Interview screener 96 1 96 0.08 (5 minutes) 8
Cognitive Interviews........ 9 1 9 1 (60 minutes) 9
Pretest screener............ 1,280 1 1,280 0.08 (5 minutes) 102
[[Page 79912]]
Pretest..................... 640 1 640 0.75 (45 minutes) 480
Main Study Screener......... 2,112 1 2,112 0.08 (5 minutes) 169
Main Study.................. 1,056 1 1,056 0.75 (45 minutes) 792
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 5,193 1 5,193 .................. 1,560
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ There are no capital costs or operating and maintenance costs associated with the collection of information.
V. References
The following references are on display in the Division of Dockets
Management (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane,
Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852, and are available for viewing by
interested persons between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday;
they are also available electronically at https://www.regulations.gov.
FDA has verified the Web site addresses, as of the date this document
publishes in the Federal Register, but Web sites are subject to change
over time.
1. Zhong W., H. Maradit-Kremers, J.L. St. Sauver, et al., ``Age and
Sex Patterns of Drug Prescribing in a Defined American Population.''
Mayo Clinic Proceedings. 88(7):697-707, 2013.
2. Depp C.A., D.A. Schkade, W.K. Thompson, D.V. Jeste. ``Age,
Affective Experience, and Television Use.'' American Journal of
Preventative Medicine. 39:173-8, 2010.
3. Agrawal Y., E.A. Platz, J.K. Niparko. ``Prevalence of Hearing
Loss and Differences by Demographic Characteristics Among US
Adults.'' Archives of Internal Medicine. 168(14):1522-30, 2008.
4. Cruickshanks K.J., T.L. Wiley, T.S. Tweed, et al., ``Prevalence
of Hearing Loss in Older Adults in Beaver Dam, Wisconsin.'' American
Journal of Epidemiology. 148(9):879-86, 1998.
5. Lin FR, R. Thorpe, S. Gordon-Salant, L. Ferrucci. ``Hearing Loss
Prevalence and Risk Factors Among Older Adults in the United
States.'' The Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences
and Medical Sciences. 66A(5):582-90, 2011.
6. Garstecki DC, S.F. Erler. ``Hearing Loss, Control, and
Demographic Factors Influencing Hearing Aid Use Among Older
Adults.'' Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. 41:527-
37, 1998.
7. Gates G.A., J.C. Cooper. ``Incidence of Hearing Decline in the
Elderly.'' Acta Oto-laryngol. 111:240-8, 1991.
8. Humes L.E. ``Speech Understanding in the Elderly.'' Journal of
the American Academy of Audiology. 7:161-7, 1996.
9. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Code of Federal Regulations.
Prescription drug advertisements, 21 CFR Sect. 202.1. 2013. (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfCFR/CFRSearch.cfm?fr=202.1)
10. Wingfield A., L.W. Poon, L. Lombardi, D. Lowe. ``Speed of
Processing in Normal Aging: Effects of Speech Rate, Linguistic
Structure, and Processing Time.'' The Journals of Gerontology.
40(5):579-85, 1985.
11. Kramer A.F., S. Hahn, D. Gopher. ``Task Coordination and Aging:
Explorations of Executive Control Processes in the Task Switching
Paradigm.'' Acta Psychologica. 101:339-78, 1999.
12. Naveh-Benjamin M., J. Guez, A. Kilb, S. Reedy. ``The Associative
Memory Deficit of Older Adults: Further Support Using Face-Name
Associations.'' Psychology and Aging. 19(3):541-6, 2004.
13. Sommers M.S., N. Tye-Murray, B. Spehar. ``Auditory-Visual Speech
Perception and Auditory-Visual Enhancement in Normal-Hearing Younger
and Older Adults.'' Ear and Hearing. 26(3):263-75, 2005.
14. Watson J.M., K.B. McDermott, D.A. Balota. ``Attempting to Avoid
False Memories in the Deese/Roediger-McDermott Paradigm: Assessing
the Combined Influence of Practice and Warnings in Young and Old
Adults.'' Memory and Cognition. 32(1):135-41, 2004.
15. Gates G.A., M.P. Feeney, D. Mills. ``Cross-Sectional Age-Changes
of Hearing in the Elderly.'' Ear and Hearing. 29(6):865-74, 2008.
16. Morrell C.H., S. Gordon-Salant, J.D. Pearson, L.J. Brant, J.L.
Fozard. ``Age- and Gender-Specific Reference Ranges for Hearing
Level and Longitudinal Changes in Hearing Level.'' Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America. 100(4)Pt. 1:1949-67, 1996.
17. Cutler A., D. Dahan, W. van Donselaar. ``Prosody in the
Comprehension of Spoken Language: A Literature Review.'' Language
and Speech. 40(2):141-201, 1997.
Dated: December 15, 2015.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2015-32251 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P