For my peer review I decided to review “Pharma Prompt 1” by jdie4. From reading this contribution I learned that drug companies hire actors to act like doctors to try to convince potential customers through direct-to-consumer ads that the drugs are endorsed by doctors. Due to these drug advertisements, many consumers will ask for the drug by name and doctors are more likely to prescribe it to them because it was explicitly asked for, rather than just buy the generic drug that may work better. These ads also cause some people to self-diagnose their problems based on the symptoms the drug commercial lists off. People should not be doing this based on commercials, they should go to their doctor for an accurate diagnosis.
It would be good for a person with health problems looking for a drug to solve the problem so that they realize that they should not listen to those ads. Instead, they should talk to their doctor rather than basing themselves off of information provided by the drug commercial that has no strict guidelines for what exactly is to be included in the commercial, making the commercials misleading.
The strongest parts of this contribution are the numbered talking points, making the information presented easy to find and straightforward, the quote cited from an article that helps back up the argument being made, and the call to action in the last paragraph as to what should be done over the drug advertisements. The call to action says, “have actual medical doctors endorse the drugs…Doctors should also be encouraged to inform their patients who come asking for these big-name drugs about alternatives and generics.”
The weakest part of this contribution is that there are no citations as to where the information talked about in the prompt was from. What is the article that was being discussed?
The contribution is straightforward and jdie4 makes it an easy read. I did not need to read it several times to understand what was being discussed and there were no typos or grammar/punctuation errors.
On a scale of 1 to 3, where 1 is the lowest possible and 4 is the highest possible, I rate this contribution a 3 because although the article was very good, it was not cited. I know that jdie4 wrote about direct to consumer ads, but not where the information discussed is from.