Healthy Skepticism Library item: 2959
Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.
Publication type: Journal Article
Harrell GD, Lindsay CM.
Pharmaceutical marketing
1978; 69-90
Abstract:
The 1975 direct outlay for medical journal advertising, direct mail advertising and detailing was $508 million, most directly at doctors although some promotion was also aimed at dentists and pharmacists. Most work to date has investigated how marketing influences decisions about new drugs. Little is known about the effects on older products. Based on limited evidence, sales representatives and journal articles seem to be the most influential sources in keeping physicians informed. It appears that physicians use more information from noncommercial sources when the risk of prescribing increases. The cost of industry marketing is inherently high because of the large amount of documentation-regulatory and medical-needed to explain the products and because of the relatively high technological exchange of information, including a good deal of individualized service to the physician. Pharmaceutical marketing must be highly sensitive to social pressure and interests creating a sense of “self-regulation†within many firms. Government regulations also impose a number of requirements on advertising and labeling.
Keywords:
*nonsystematic review/United States/promotion costs and volume/sales representatives/direct mail/journal advertisements/value of promotion/regulation of promotion/new drugs/safety & risk information/quality of information/doctors/EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: DETAILING/EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: DIRECT MAIL/EVALUATION OF PROMOTION: JOURNAL ADVERTISEMENTS/INFLUENCE OF PROMOTION: PRESCRIBING, DRUG USE/PROMOTION AS A SOURCE OF INFORMATION: DOCTORS/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: DIRECT GOVERNMENT REGULATION/REGULATION, CODES, GUIDELINES: INDUSTRY SELF-REGULATION/VOLUME OF AND EXPENDITURE ON PROMOTION
