corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 18250

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

Ed.
Rational use of medicines
Lancet 2010 Jun 12; 375:(9731):2052
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)60944-0/fulltext


Abstract:

According to a fact sheet by WHO (May, 2010) about the rational use of medicines, more than 50% of all medicines are not correctly prescribed, dispensed, and sold; and more than 50% of patients take their drugs incorrectly. The situation is worse in developing countries, with less than 40% of patients in the public sector and less than 30% in the private sector being treated according to clinical guidelines. Several factors contribute to the incorrect use of medicines-eg, prescribers might obtain information about treatments from pharmaceutical companies rather than referring to evidence-based clinical guidelines; incomplete diagnosis of a patient’s disease could result in inadequate provision of treatment; and patients might seek affordable versions of expensive drugs on the internet that are not quality assured.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963