Authors : Deepshikha Singh

Volume/Issue : Volume 10 - 2025, Issue 11 - November

Google Scholar : https://tinyurl.com/3pk2a2a7

Scribd : https://tinyurl.com/2r6aja6r

DOI : https://doi.org/10.38124/ijisrt/25nov1009

Note : A published paper may take 4-5 working days from the publication date to appear in PlumX Metrics, Semantic Scholar, and ResearchGate.

Note : Google Scholar may take 30 to 40 days to display the article.

Abstract : Pharmaceutical marketing occupies a contentious space between commercial objectives and public-health responsibility as the industry rapidly adopts digital technologies. Digital platforms enable precise outreach and patient engagement but also amplify ethical risks such as covert promotion, misinformation, and privacy breaches. Direct-to- consumer promotion influences patient requests and prescribing behaviour, with measurable impacts on medicine use and clinician–patient interactions. Regulatory activity has responded variably: recent U.S. initiatives emphasise clearer disclosure and oversight of online and influencer-driven promotion, while international approaches remain heterogeneous. In India, formal guidance exists yet enforcement gaps and limited digital-specific rules produce practical ambiguities. This study uses a qualitative exploratory design and thematic synthesis of peer-reviewed studies, regulatory documents and industry reports, applying the Transparency–Accountability–Authenticity (TAA) analytical framework and a framework- method (deductive–inductive) coding strategy. Findings show frequent absence of clear disclosure in unbranded disease- awareness and influencer content, amplified reach via algorithmic targeting, and fragmented regulatory responses. The TAA framework provides an operational lens to guide policy reform, platform accountability, and future empirical evaluation.

Keywords : Pharmaceutical Marketing, Consumer Behavior, Drug Promotion, Healthcare Communication, Regulatory Challenges, Digital Marketing in Pharma, Brand Perception, Ethical Marketing.

References :

1. Akerlof, G.A., 1970. The market for ‘lemons’: Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), pp.488–500.
2. Braun, V. & Clarke, V., 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), pp.77–101.
3. Creswell, J.W. & Poth, C.N., 2018. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches. 4th ed. Sage Publications.
4. DeFrank, J.T., Berkman, N.D., Kahwati, L.C., Cullen, K.E., Woolf, S.H. & Brewer, N.T., 2020. Direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs and the patient–prescriber encounter: A systematic review. Health Communication.
5. DiStefano, M., Markell, J., Doherty, C., Alexander, G.C. & Anderson, G., 2023. Spending on consumer advertising for top-selling prescription drugs in US favors those with low added benefit. Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School Study.
6. Donohue, J.M., Cevasco, M. & Rosenthal, M.B., 2007. A decade of direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. New England Journal of Medicine, 357(7), pp.673–681.
7. Drugs and Magic Remedies (Objectionable Advertisements) Act, 1954. Government of India.
8. Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Government of India.
9. FDA, 2023. Guidance for industry: Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertisements. U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
10. Franquiz, M.J., Shrank, W.H., Ettner, S.L. & Mangione, C.M., 2021. Direct-to-consumer drug advertisement and prescribing practices: Evidence review and practical guidance for clinicians. Journal of General Internal Medicine.
11. Fugh-Berman, A. & Ahari, S., 2007. ‘Influence of industry’ and its implications for public health. PLoS Medicine, 4(4), e83.
12. Gibson, S., 2014. As more consumers turn to the internet for health information: Challenges for healthcare providers. International Journal of Health Policy and Management.
13. Liang, B.A. & Mackey, T.K., 2010. Reforming off-label promotion to enhance orphan disease treatment. Science, 327(5963), pp.273–274.
14. Mackey, T.K., Li, J. & Liang, B.A., 2020. Direct-to-consumer advertising with interactive internet media: Global regulation and public health issues. JAMA.
15. Medical Council of India, 2002. Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations. New Delhi: Medical Council of India.
16. Murphy, P.E., Laczniak, G.R. & Prothero, A., 2012. Ethical marketing: Guidelines, practices, and consumer trust. Journal of Business Ethics, 105(2), pp.157–170.
17. Nowell, L.S., Norris, J.M., White, D.E. & Moules, N.J., 2017. Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 16, pp.1–13.
18. Stebbins, R.A., 2001. Exploratory research in the social sciences. Sage Publications.
19. The Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Government of India.
20. The Uniform Code of Pharmaceutical Marketing Practices (UCPMP), 2014. Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India.
21. Ventola, C.L., 2011. Direct-to-consumer pharmaceutical advertising: Therapeutic or toxic? P & T, 36(10), pp.669–684.
22. WHO, 2020. Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion. World Health Organization.
23. Eriksson, T., Levin, L-Å. and Nedlund, A-C. (2021) ‘Centrality and compatibility of institutional logics when introducing value-based reimbursement’, Journal of Health Organization and Management, 35(9), pp. 298-314.
24. Petty, R.E. and Cacioppo, J.T. (1986) Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
25. Shahab, M.H., Ghazali, E. and Mohtar, M. (2021) ‘The role of elaboration likelihood model in consumer behaviour research and its extension to new technologies: A review and future research agenda’, International Journal of Consumer Studies, 45(4), pp. 664-689.
26. Susmann, M.W., Luttrell, A., and Petty, R.E. (2022) ‘Persuasion amidst a pandemic: Insights from the Elaboration Likelihood Model’, European Review of Social Psychology, 33(2), pp. 323-359.
27. DiMaggio, P.J. and Powell, W.W. (1983) ‘The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields’, American Sociological Review, 48(2), pp. 147-160.