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: 20363

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

Charatan F
Doctors say they are not influenced by drug companies' promotions
BMJ 2001 May 5; 322:(7294):1081
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1120227/


Abstract:

Resident doctors in the United States like gifts from the pharmaceutical industry but do not think they are influenced by them.

Dr Michael Steinman and his colleagues at the Department of Medicine, University of California in San Francisco, studied residents’ attitudes towards drug companies’ promotions and are to publish their results in the May issue of the American Journal of Medicine.

They sent questionnaires to all 117 first and second year residents at the university’s internal medicine residency programme; they achieved a 90% response.

Nine types of promotions were questioned, ranging from the inexpensive (such as pocket antibiotic guides and meals at department conferences) to the expensive (such as funding for travel to a continuing medical education conference and even for luggage). Residents were asked to rate their attitudes towards doctors’ acceptance of such promotions on a four point scale from “very inappropriate” to “very appropriate.”

The researchers found that a majority of residents considered seven out of nine types of promotions appropriate. Residents judged the appropriateness of promotions on the basis of cost more than on the basis of their educational value.

Behaviour was often inconsistent with attitudes. Every resident who considered conference lunches and pens inappropriate had accepted these gifts. However, although only 39% of residents stated that industry promotions and contacts influenced their own prescribing, 84% believed that other doctors’ prescribing was affected. None the less, more than two thirds of the residents agreed that it was appropriate for a medical institution to have rules on industry interactions with residents and faculty.

 

  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