"Ask your doctor" works - in both directions
In a randomized trial, asking for a drug by brand name quintupled prescribing where the drug was not clearly indicated. The same asking also cut undertreatment of real depression.
We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. how we score evidence
Caveat on this rating: The built-in rebuttal is structural, per the verified record: BOTH directions print together, always. A brand-name request quintupled prescribing where antidepressants are not clearly indicated (55% vs 10%) AND requests cut undertreatment of real depression (minimally acceptable care 56% without a request, 90-98% with one) - the authors' conclusion is that DTC advertising "may have competing effects on quality, potentially both averting underuse and promoting overuse". The chain also stays explicit: Kravitz tests requests, not ads; the ads-to-requests link is the review tier (Mintzes 2012). "Ads make doctors prescribe" is on the do-not-publish list.
Trained actors made 298 unannounced visits to 152 primary-care doctors. Each presented either major depression or adjustment disorder, where antidepressants are not clearly indicated. Some asked for a brand by name, some asked generally, some asked for nothing.
Significant findings
For adjustment disorder, antidepressants were prescribed in 55% of brand-request visits and 10% of no-request visits.
The other direction must print beside the first. For real major depression, minimally acceptable initial care was offered in 90% to 98% of visits where the patient asked, against 56% where nobody asked.
The authors concluded that this advertising "may have competing effects on quality, potentially both averting underuse and promoting overuse." A version that gives you one direction is arguing, not informing.
Worth asking
The trial tested patient requests, not ads. The link from ads to requests is separate evidence. So if something you saw makes you want to ask, ask.
Then ask what the ad cannot answer. Is this clearly indicated for me, what is the absolute benefit, and what are the alternatives? A request should open the conversation, not close it.
Source
Influence of Patients' Requests for Direct-to-Consumer Advertised Antidepressants: A Randomized Controlled Trial — Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, et al. (2005)
Read the source: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.16.1995
DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.16.1995
How this was scored
- Study design
- not recorded
- Funding
- not recorded
- Published in
- not recorded
- Sample size
- not recorded
- Preregistered
- not recorded
- Conflicts disclosed
- not recorded
- Independent of proponent
- not recorded
- Retracted
- No
We have not finished checking this source, so there is no scoring to show yet. “We have not checked this yet” and “this is disputed” are different statements, so no scored band is shown rather than a low one.
Read the full scoring rubric, including what it can't tell you.
Published August 31, 2026.
Questions
How strong is the evidence behind this?
Resolv rates this source "not yet assessed". We have not finished checking this source. No judgement either way. One caveat travels with that badge: The built-in rebuttal is structural, per the verified record: BOTH directions print together, always. A brand-name request quintupled prescribing where antidepressants are not clearly indicated (55% vs 10%) AND requests cut undertreatment of real depression (minimally acceptable care 56% without a request, 90-98% with one) - the authors' conclusion is that DTC advertising "may have competing effects on quality, potentially both averting underuse and promoting overuse". The chain also stays explicit: Kravitz tests requests, not ads; the ads-to-requests link is the review tier (Mintzes 2012). "Ads make doctors prescribe" is on the do-not-publish list. The score is calculated from recorded facts about the source — study design, funding, publication venue, sample size, preregistration — not typed in by an editor.
What is the source for this?
Influence of Patients' Requests for Direct-to-Consumer Advertised Antidepressants: A Randomized Controlled Trial — Kravitz RL, Epstein RM, Feldman MD, et al. (2005). DOI: 10.1001/jama.293.16.1995. The full source is linked on this page so you can read it yourself.
Is this medical advice?
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.
This is information to bring to your prescriber, not medical advice and not a reason to change anything on your own. Nothing here is an instruction to stop or reduce a medication. If you are in crisis, call or text 988.