Healthy Skepticism Library item: 5792

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: news

McNeill P.
Giving and receiving of gifts between pharmaceutical companies and medical specialists in Australia
Internal Medicine Journal 2006 Sep 1
http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1445-5994.2006.01151.x

Abstract:

Internal Medicine Journal
Volume 36 Page 571 – September 2006

ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Giving and receiving of gifts between pharmaceutical companies and medical
specialists in Australia

P. M. McNeill,1 I. H. Kerridge,2 D. A. Henry,3 B. Stokes,3 S. R. Hill,3 D.
Newby,4 G. J. Macdonald,5 R. O. Day,6 J. Maguire3 and K. M. Henderson3

Abstract

Background: This study investigated the ‘gift-relationship’ between
pharmaceutical companies and doctors.

Methods: The study was based on a survey questionnaire of 823 medical
specialists from across Australia. The aim of this study was to investigate
gifts offered to medical specialists in Australia by pharmaceutical
companies, financial support actively sought by medical specialists for
activities other than research and to consider what is ethically
appropriate.

Results: A high percentage of specialists received offers of food (96%),
items for the office (94%), personal gifts (51%) and journals or textbooks
(50%). Most specialists were invited to product launches, symposia or
educational events (75-84%) and 52% received offers of travel to
conferences. A high proportion of offers were accepted (66-79%) except
invitations to product launches (49%), sponsored symposia (53%) and offers
of travel that included partners (27%). Fifteen per cent of specialists
requested financial support from pharmaceutical companies for activities and
items, including conferences, travel, educational activities, salaries and
donations to specific funds. The study outlined guidelines on gifts from
pharmaceutical companies and differing standards applying to gifts and
grants for travel. We found that, although most gifts and requests for
support complied with professional and pharmaceutical industry guidelines,
some – including personal gifts, tickets to sporting events, entertainment
and travel expenses for specialists’ partners – did not.

Conclusion: To ensure that physicians’ judgements are free from real or
perceived influence from industry and to maintain public trust, we support a
shift towards more conservative standards on gifts and support for travel
evident in recent guidelines.