8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
1/102
WHO/EDM/PAR/2004.3
Drug promotion
what we know, what we have yet to learn
Reviews of materials in the WHO/HAIdatabase on drug promotion
Pauline Norris
Andrew Herxheimer
Joel Lexchin
Peter Mansfield
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
2/102
Thisdocumenthasbeenproducedwith the financial assistanceof theEuropeanCommunity.TheviewsexpressedhereinarethoseoftheauthorsandcanthereforeinnowaybetakentoreflecttheofficialopinionoftheEuropeanCommunity.
WorldHealthOrganizationandHealthActionInternational2005
Allrightsreserved.
Thedesignationsemployedandthepresentationofthematerialinthispublicationdonotimply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the World HealthOrganizationandHealthActionInternationalconcerningthelegalstatusofanycountry,territory,cityorareaorofitsauthorities,orconcerningthedelimitationofitsfrontiersor
boundaries.Dottedlinesonmapsrepresentapproximateborderlinesforwhichtheremaynotyetbefullagreement.
Thementionofspecificcompaniesorofcertainmanufacturersproductsdoesnot implythat theyareendorsedor recommendedby theWorldHealthOrganizationandHealthAction International inpreference toothersofa similarnature thatarenotmentioned.Errorsandomissionsexcepted, thenamesofproprietaryproductsaredistinguishedbyinitialcapitalletters.
TheWorldHealthOrganizationandHealthActionInternationaldonotwarrantthattheinformationcontainedinthispublicationiscompleteandcorrectandshallnotbeliableforanydamagesincurredasaresultofitsuse.
Thenamedauthorsaloneareresponsiblefortheviewsexpressedinthispublication.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
3/102
Acknowledgements
Pauline Norris is a Senior Lecturer and Leader, Clinical/Pharmacy PracticeResearch, in the School of Pharmacy, University of Otago, Dunedin, NewZealand.A sociologist andhealth services researcher, sheworksonpharmacyandmedicinerelated issues.Her areasof interest include improving antibioticuse, evaluating pharmacy services, and the influence of ethnicity and socioeconomicstatusonmedicineuse.ShehaswrittencriticalreviewsoftheresearchbasedarticlesincludedintheWHO/HAIdrugpromotiondatabase.
Contact:DrPaulineNorris,SeniorLecturer,SchoolofPharmacy,Universityof
Otago,POBox913,Dunedin,NewZealand.Tel:+6434797359, fax:+6434797034,email:[email protected]
AndrewHerxheimer taught clinicalpharmacologyand therapeutics atLondonUniversityuntil1991.Healso founded theUKDrugandTherapeuticsBulletin in1962 and edited it until 1992. Since then he has worked in the CochraneCollaborationandisnowEmeritusFellowoftheUKCochraneCentreinOxford.He is cofounder of the charityDIPEx, aDatabase of Personal Experiences ofillness(www.dipex.org).ChairoftheInternationalSocietyofDrugBulletinsuntil1996,AndrewHerxheimer is interested inallaspectsofprovidingprofessionals
andthepublicwithunbiasedandclearinformationaboutthebenefitsandharmsof therapeutic anddiagnostic interventions.Hehasa continuing interest in allaspectsofpharmaceuticalpromotion,andinthestrategiesthatsociety,especiallydoctorsandhealthservices,canusetocontrolorcounterit.
Contact:DrAndrewHerxheimer,9ParkCrescent,LondonN32NL,UK.Tel:+442083465470,fax:+442083460407,email:[email protected]
Joel Lexchin is an Associate Professor in the School of Health Policy and
ManagementatYorkUniversity inToronto,Canada,andisalsoadoctor intheEmergencyDepartment at theUniversityHealthNetwork in Toronto.He hasbeen involved in researchingandwritingaboutpharmaceuticalpolicy forover20yearsandhaspublishedover45peerreviewedarticlesinthisarea.Hismainfocus hasbeen on promotion to doctors, directtoconsumer advertising, theregulatory approval process and the direction of research funded by thepharmaceuticalindustry.Heisresponsiblefordesigningthedatabase,collectingthematerialthatappearsinitandcompiledthefirst2200entries.
Contact:DrJoel Lexchin, School ofHealthPolicy andManagement,Atkinson
Faculty of Liberal and Professional Studies, York University, 4700 Keele St.Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3. E mails: [email protected] [email protected]
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
4/102
Peter R. Mansfield is a General Practitioner and a Research Fellow in theDepartmentofGeneralPracticeat theUniversityofAdelaide,Australia.He isDirectorofHealthySkepticism(www.healthyskepticism.org).ThiswasformerlycalledtheMedicalLobbyforAppropriateMarketingInc(MaLAM),whichPeterMansfieldfoundedin1983toimprovehealthbyreducingharmfrommisleading
drugpromotion.Hisprofessionalinterestsincludegeneralmedicalpracticeandresearch,educationandadvocacyonpharmaceuticalmarketing.
Contact:DrPeterMansfield,34MethodistSt,WillungaSA,5172,Australia.Tel.andfax:+61885571040,email:[email protected]
Particular thanksaredue toMargaretEwen (HAIEurope),andRichardLaingandHansHogerzeil(WHODepartmentofEssentialDrugsandMedicinesPolicy)for their contributions to settingup thedatabase and to thismanual.Zulham
HamdanattheWHOCollaboratingCentreatUniversitiSainsMalaysiadesignedandmaintainsthewebsite.
Comments about the database and the reviews shouldbe forwarded toHAIEuropeinthefirstinstance:
HealthActionInternationalEuropeJacobvanLennepkade334T1053NJAmsterdamTheNetherlands
Phone+31206833684Fax:+31206855002Email:[email protected]
DrugPromotionDatabaseURL:http://www.drugpromo.info/
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
5/102
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
6/102
Review3.Whatimpactdoespharmaceuticalpromotionhaveonbehaviour? . 333.1 Impactofpromotiononindividualprescribingpractices........................................33 3.2 Selfreportedreasonsforprescribingchanges ...........................................................34 3.3 Prescribingbythosewhorelyoncommercialinformation .....................................36
3.4
Prescribing
and
exposure
to
promotion .....................................................................38
3.5 Exploringtheimpactofsamplesonprescribing .......................................................41 Summary...................................................................................................................................41 3.6 Impactofpromotiononoverallsales..........................................................................42 3.7 Impactofpromotionandindustryfundingonrequestsforformularyadditions453.8 DTCAandconsumersdecisions.................................................................................46 3.9 Impactofsponsorshiponcontentofcontinuingmedicaleducationcourses........483.10 Impactofindustryfundingonresearch .....................................................................48 3.11 Doesfundingaffecttheresearchagenda? ..................................................................54 3.12 Doauthorsrevealfundingsources?............................................................................54 Summaryofconclusions.........................................................................................................54
Review4.Whatinterventionshavebeentriedtocounterpromotional
activities,andwithwhatresults?............................................................................... 574.1 Guidelines,codesandregulationsforprintedandbroadcastmaterial .................57 4.2. TheFairbalancerequirement ....................................................................................61 4.3 Guidelinesforsalesrepresentatives............................................................................62 4.4 Guidelinesforpostmarketingsurveillance...............................................................63 4.5 Guidelinesonconflictofinterestinresearch .............................................................64 4.6 Guidelinesforpackageinsertsandcompendia.........................................................64 4.7 Guidelinesaboutgifts ...................................................................................................65 4.8 Guidelinesfortraineedoctorsandforhospitals .......................................................66
4.9
Knowledge
of
these
guidelines
and
their
effect
on
attitudes...................................67
4.10 Educationaboutpromotion..........................................................................................68 4.11 Monitoring/counteringpromotion ..............................................................................70 4.12 Researchasanintervention..........................................................................................71 Summaryofconclusions.........................................................................................................72 Directionsforfutureresearch.................................................................................................73
Finalconclusions........................................................................................................... 73
References....................................................................................................................... 75
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
7/102
vii
Executive summary
Pharmaceutical manufacturers spend vast sums of money on promotion,including sales representatives,samples,advertisements inbroadcastandprintmedia,andsponsorshipofeducationaleventsandconferences.IntheUSAalone,almostUS$21billionwas spentonpromotion in2002. Indeveloping countriessalesrepresentativesarefrequentlytheonlysourceofdruginformation.
ThisreportispartofaprojectondrugpromotionbeingcarriedoutbyWHOandHAIEurope.Thisstageoftheprojectinvolvedcollectingandanalysingexistinginformation onpromotion.Adatabase (http://www.drugpromo.info) including
over2700journalarticles,booksandothermaterialhasbeendeveloped.Researchstudiesfromthedatabasewereanalysedandtheseformthebasisofthisreport.
Whatattitudesdoprofessionalandlaypeoplehavetopromotion?
Research suggests that doctors attitudes to promotion vary, and do notnecessarilymatch theirbehaviour. Their opinions differ on the value of salesrepresentatives,onwhethertheyshouldbebannedduringmedicaltraining,andonwhetherdoctorsareadequately trained to interactwith them.Mostdoctorsthinkinformationfrompharmaceuticalcompaniesisbiased,butmanythinkitis
useful.Health professionals find small gifts from drug companies acceptable.Doctorswhoreportrelyingonpromotiontendtobeolder,andmorelikelytobegeneral practitioners. Opinions about directtoconsumer advertising ofprescription medicines (DTCA) are mixed. Most companies, the advertisingindustryandthemediafavourit,whiledoctorsgenerallyopposeit.Consumersandpatientsaredividedontheissue.
Studiesonpeoplesattitudestopromotionrelytoomuchonquantitativesurveys,ontheuseofconvenient,accessiblesamples,andondescribingtheprevalenceofattitudes rather than relationshipsbetween attitudes and other characteristics.
Qualitativestudiesareneededinthisarea.
What impact does pharmaceutical promotion have on attitudes and
knowledge?
Doctors themselves report that they often use promotion as a source ofinformationaboutnewdrugs.Doctorsinprivatepractice,orwhograduatedlongago report the highest use of promotion as a source of drug information.Promotioninfluencesattitudesmorethandoctorsrealise.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
8/102
viii
Thereisnoresearchinthedatabaseontheimpactofpromotionontheattitudesofothergroups,suchasconsumers,pharmacists,nursesordrugstorestaff,allofwhomare importantdecisionmakersaboutmedicines.Suchresearchwouldbeusefulfordevelopinginterventionsforthesegroups.
Whatimpactdoespharmaceuticalpromotionhaveonbehaviour?
Thisisthemostimportantandmostdifficultareatoresearch.Peoplemaynotbeawarehowmuchpromotion influences them,and/or theymaybeunwilling toreportthis.
Researchclearlyshowsthatdoctorswhoreportrelyingmoreonpromotiontendtoprescribelessappropriately,prescribemoreoftenandadoptnewdrugsmorequickly.Samplesappeartoinfluenceprescribing,butmoreresearchisneededonthisissue.Studieswhichlookattheimpactofpromotiononoverallsalesusually
show increased sales after promotional activities. Pharmaceutical funding fordoctors,suchasresearchfunding,increasesrequestformedicinesmadebythesecompanies to be added to hospital formularies. DTCA is associated withincreased requests from patients for advertised medicines. Sponsorship mayaffectthecontentofcontinuingmedicaleducation.
The pharmaceutical industry hasbecome a muchmore significant source offunding for academic research. Industry funding tends tobe associatedwithinfluenceover thechoiceof topic, secrecy,delayedpublicationandconflictsofinterest.Pharmaceuticalcompanyfundedresearchismorelikelytoshowresults
favourabletotheproductbeingstudiedthanresearchfundedfromothersources.
Moreresearch isneededon thepublichealthconsequencesofdrugpromotion.For example, thismight explore causal relationshipsbetween promotion andprescribing of drugswhich have little or no place in rational prescribing, orwhich have serious adverse consequences when overprescribed, such asantibiotics.More research is needed on the effect of promotion indevelopingcountries.
What interventions have been tried to counter promotional activities,
andwithwhatresults?
This reportdoesnotdescribe thewhole rangeof interventions thathavebeenused,onlythosewhichhavebeenthesubjectofevaluativeresearch.
Many studies show that printed advertisements do notmeet regulations andguidelines in force in various countries. Neither selfregulatory systems norreviewbyjournaleditorsprovideeffectivecontrolondrugadvertising.Studiesofpromotionbydrugcompanyrepresentativessuggest thattheguidelinesandregulationsthatshouldcontrolthemareineffective.Theonlyreportedregulatory
system for postmarketing surveillance that has been studied has not beensuccessful.Manyorganizations lackadequatepolicies fordealingwithconflictsof interest.Guidelines for regulating contactsbetween companies andmedical
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
9/102
ix
trainees vary greatlybetween institutions. There is conflicting evidence aboutwhether these affect the attitudes of trainee doctors, and if sowhether theseeffectspersistovertime.Educationaboutpromotionappearstochangeattitudesand can improve skills. Its impact on prescribing has not yet been tested.Publication of descriptions of deceptive promotion can leadmanufacturers to
improvetheirpromotionalpractices.
Interventionsneed tobedesignedusing the current evidencebaseaboutdrugpromotion,and theseneed tobeevaluatedandpublished.Researchcomparingtheeffectofdifferentregulatoryframeworksisurgentlyneeded.
Conclusions
There isawiderangeofevidenceondifferenttopics,usingarangeofdifferentdesigns, suggesting that promotion affects attitudes andbehaviour.However
there are gaps in the evidence, andmore highquality studies are needed toestablishcausalrelationshipsbetweenpromotionandattitudesandbehaviourofdoctors and others, to provide more nuanced information about peoplesattitudestopromotion,andtoinvestigatetheimpactofinterventionstoregulateorcountertheeffectofpromotion.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
10/102
x
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
11/102
Introduction
1
Introduction
Itisincreasinglyimportanttounderstandtheeffectsthatdrugpromotionhasonprescribing and the use ofmedication given the growing amounts ofmoneycompaniesaredevotingtothisactivity.In2002,almostUS$21billionwasspentonpromotion in theUSA, includingoverUS$2.6billionondirecttoconsumeradvertising (DCTA)i. These amounts are at least 30 times what nationalgovernmentsspendondrug information (forexample, in Italy:US$4475/doctorby thepharmaceutical industryversusUS$180/doctorby the government)ii. InCanada in 2000 therewere over 3.4million visitsby sales representatives to
doctors,
leaving
behind
21.5
million
drug
samplesiii
and
in
the
USA
companies
organizedover300000eventsfordoctorsiv.Salesrepresentativesarefrequentlytheonly sourceof informationaboutmedicines indeveloping countrieswheretheremaybeasmanyasonerepresentativeforeveryfivedoctorsv.
Attemptstocontrolpromotionhavelargelyreliedonacombinationofvoluntarycodes adopted by industry associations and medical organizations. On thesurface,voluntary selfregulatory codes from thepharmaceutical industrymaylook like a sensible approach to controlling the promotional activities ofcompanies; lackinggovernmentindustryadversariness, theyhave thepotentialtobeamoreflexibleandcosteffectiveoption.Inahighlycompetitiveindustry,thedesireofindividualcompaniestopreventcompetitorsfromgaininganedgecouldbeharnessed to serve thepublic interest through a regime ofvoluntaryselfregulationrunbyatradeassociation.However,likemanytheoriesthisoneproves tobe unsupportedby the evidence. Themission of trade associations,such as Pharmaceutical Research andManufacturers ofAmerica (PhRMA), isprimarily to increase sales and profit. From the business perspective, selfregulation ismostly concernedwith the control of anticompetitive practices.Therefore, when industrial associations draw up their codes of practice theydeliberatelymake themvagueordonotcovercertain featuresofpromotion toallowcompaniesawide latitude.Manymisleadingadvertising tacticsaregoodfor business. As a result voluntary codes tend to be reactive, they lacktransparency,theyomitlargeareasofconcern,andtheylackeffectivesanctions.
iCanadianMedicalAssociationJournal2003;169:699.iiCentroStudiFarmindustria,Indicatorifarmaceutici,Farmindustria,Rome,1998,p.186.iiiCBCDisclosure,Targetingdoctors.Graph: top50drugsby totalpromotionaldollars.Availableat:www.cbc.ca/disclosure/archives/0103_pharm/resources.htmlivScottLevin.RxsandRSVPs:pharmaceuticalcompaniesholdingmorephysicianmeetingsandevents.July9,2001.Availableat:
http://www.quintiles.com/products_and_services/informatics/scott_levin/
press_releases/press_release/1,1254,244,00.html.vLexchinJ.Deceptionbydesign:pharmaceuticalpromotioninthethirdworld.Penang:ConsumersInternational,1995.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
12/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
2
Codes frommedical associationsmay have stronger provisionsbut they areunenforceableand relyonmoral suasion for theirpower. In the few countrieswherepromotionisdirectlycontrolledbygovernment,resourcelimitationsmeanthatonlyasmallfractionofactivitiescanbemonitoredvi.
If promotion leads tobetter prescribing,more rational use ofmedications orimprovedcosteffectivenessthentherewouldbenoconcern.Whiletheevidenceisnotconclusive,whatthereisallpointsinthedirectionofastrongassociationbetweenrelianceonpromotionand lessappropriateoveralluseofprescriptiondrugsvii.Heavypromotionofnewdrugsleadstowidespreadprescribingandusebefore the safety profile of these products is fully understood. Newer,moreexpensivemedicinesdisplaceolder,lesscostlyoneswithoutanyevidenceofanimprovementintherapeuticoutcomesviii.
Backgroundtotheproject
The impetus foramajorprojectonpharmaceuticalpromotionoriginatedat theMay1999meetingoftheWHO/PublicInterestNongovernmentalOrganizationsRoundtable on Pharmaceuticals.Unethical and inappropriate drug promotionhas been a continuing concern of both NGOs and the WHO. At the 1997RoundtableonWHOsEthicalCriteriaforMedicinalDrugPromotiontherewasfirm agreement that inappropriate promotion of medicinal drugs remains aproblembothindevelopinganddevelopedcountries.
Although there is an abundance of information about drug promotion it hadnever been fully documented and as such organizations, governments,individuals and otherswere restricted in their ability to access thebreadth ofknowledge that hadbeen accumulated, to analyse it, to learn from it and toexpandon it.Therefore, the firstphaseof thepromotionprojectwas tocollect,analyseandmakepubliclyaccessibleaswidearangeofmaterialaspossiblethatdescribed, analysed, reported or commented on any aspect of pharmaceuticalpromotion.
This
drug
promotion
project
is
a
collaboration
between
the
WHO
Department
of
EssentialDrugs andMedicines Policy (EDM) andHealthAction International(HAI)Europe.
viLexchinJ,KawachiI.Voluntarycodesofpharmaceuticalmarketing:controllingpromotionorlicensingdeception. In:DavisPed.Contestedground:publicpurposeandprivateinterestintheregulationofprescriptiondrugs.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1996:221235.vii
Wazana
A.
Physicians
and
the
pharmaceutical
industry:
is
a
gift
ever
just
a
gift?
JAMA
2000;283:373380.viiiLexchinJ.Shoulddoctorsprescribenewdrugs?InternationalJournalofRiskandSafetyinMedicine2002;15:21322.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
13/102
Introduction
3
Developmentofthedrugpromotiondatabase
InOctober 2002 the drug promotionweb sitewas freely accessible online athttp://www.drugpromo.info.Themain feature, thedatabaseofdrugpromotion
material,currentlycontainsapproximately2700entries.
Forthisproject,promotionwasbroadlydefinedusingtheWHOdefinition:allinformationalandpersuasiveactivitiesbymanufacturers,theeffectofwhichistoinduce the prescription, supply, purchase and/or use of medicinal drugs.Materialonpromotionwas sought frombooks,journal articles,magazine andnewspaper stories, articles from drugbulletins/newsletters, videos, radio andtelevisiontranscripts,andguidelinesfromorganizationsandprofessionalbodies.
MaterialforinclusioninthedatabasewasidentifiedprimarilyfromaMEDLINE
searchgoingback to1January1970.DrJoelLexchin,adrugpromotionexpertfromToronto,was theprincipal investigatorandcompiled theentries.MelissaRaven,apublichealth specialist fromFlindersUniversity,SouthAustralia,hasbeenupdatingthedatabasesincemid2002.
Additionalmaterialwas foundby scanning the list of references in the itemsfoundthroughtheMEDLINEsearch,throughcontactsintheEDrugdiscussiongroupandfromotherexpertsindrugpromotion.Materialwasonlyincludedifitwas currently possible to obtain the item andwas excluded if it came fromsources such as unpublished articles where there was no contact address
available,or articles frommagazines thathadgoneoutofproduction, etc.Allmaterialthatfittedthesecriteriawasincludedregardlessofwhoproducedit,i.e.,government, industry, NGOs, etc. Note advertisements for drugs were notincludedunlesstherewasacommentaryontheadvertisement,eitherpositiveornegative. Onlymaterial in English hasbeen includedbut there are plans toexpandthedatabasetocovermaterialinFrenchandGerman.
WhileWHOandHAIbelievethepresentdatabaseisavaluableresourceonwhatisknownaboutdrugpromotion,itneedstoevolvewithuseandexperience.Wewelcomecommentsbyusers.Wealsoneedtobroadeninvolvement,forexample,
throughpharmaceuticalcompaniesproviding theirresearchon the influenceofdrugpromotion(currentlynotusuallyaccessibleoutsideofthecompany).Thatway,thedatabasewouldgiveamorecompletepictureofwhatisknownandnotknownaboutdrugpromotion.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
14/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
4
Databaseentries
Dependingonthesourceofthematerial,eachentryhasbeencataloguedinsomeorallofthefollowingfields:
Author
Title
Source(address,emailaddressetcofgroup/organizationproducingthematerial)
Websiteaddresseswhereavailable,includingsiteswherejournalarticlesthatareavailableonlinecanbeobtained
Abstract
Keywords
Datematerialproduced(forjournalentriescompleteidentifyingdatae.g.year,journalvolumeandpagenumbers).
Entries on studies that generated new data and/or reported specificmethodological designs include notes on strengths or potentialweaknesses inhow the studywascarriedoutand the limitation in thegeneralizabilityof the
results.
Entrycontent isdescribed in twoways: throughkeywordsandalsobyputtingeachentryintooneormore groups.Thesegroupsareanadditionalmethodofbroadly describing the main topics covered by the entry. A stepbystepdemonstration of searching the database is included on theweb site to assistusers.
Potentialdatausers
Healthprofessionals
Doctors,pharmacistsandotherhealthcareworkerswillbeabletoseewhatpromotional techniques the pharmaceutical industry uses, and howpromotion influences the choice of drugs and the appropriateness ofprescribing.
Healthprofessionalassociations
Thesegroupscanusethedatabasetoseewhatguidelinesothergroupshaveadoptedforinteractionbetweenhealthprofessionalsandthepharmaceutical
industrytohelpthemformulatepolicies.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
15/102
Introduction
5
Governmentsandotherregulatorybodies
Thedatabasewillenableregulators toseewhatmethodshavebeen tried tocontrolpromotionandtheirsuccessesandfailures.
Academicresearchers
Thedatabaseenablesresearcherstoseewhichpromotionalissueshavebeeninvestigated,themethodologyothershaveusedandwhatareasareprioritiesforfurtherresearch.Inaddition,theycanlookattrendsinpromotionovera30yearperiod.
Educators
Thedatabasewillbe avaluable sourceof information for thosewho teachmedical and pharmacy students, nurses and other health science studentsabouttheinfluenceofdrugpromotion.
Consumerorganizations
Thesegroups canuse thedatabase tohelp them lobby foreffective controloverpharmaceuticalpromotionandtohelpeducateconsumersandpatientsabout the influence that promotion has over the choices that healthprofessionals make. They can also use the material to become betteracquaintedwithemergingissues.
Pharmaceuticalindustry
Pharmaceuticalcompanieswillbeabletoseewhatcriticismshavebeenmadeabouttheirpromotioninordertohelpthemdevelopbetterinternalcontrols.The database will also help pharmaceutical industry associations tostrengthentheirvoluntarycodes.
Publicandprivatesectorpayers,andprovidersofdevelopmentaid.
Thesegroups can seehowpromotionaffectsdruguseand, therefore,drugcosts.
Reviewsofdatabasematerial
Aspartoftheproject,fourreviewswereproducedbasedonsomeofthedatabasematerial.These reviewswerewritten toprovideanoverviewofwhat isand isnotknowninfourkeyareas:
Review1. Whatattitudesdopeople(professionalandlay)havetopromotion?Issues covered include attitudes to pharmaceutical company salesrepresentatives, gifts and sponsorship of conferences. Attitudes ofdoctors,consumersandotherstodirecttoconsumerdrugadvertisingarealso reviewed. In addition, there are reviews of differences in doctorsattitudes to promotion andwhether they think that promotion affectstheirprescribing.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
16/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
6
Review2. Whatimpactdoespharmaceuticalpromotionhaveonattitudesandknowledge?
In addition to studies on the effect of promotion on attitudes andknowledge, this review looks at how much doctors report using
promotion
as
a
source
of
information
(either
for
all
drugs,
or
particularly
fornewdrugs).
Review3. Whatimpactdoespharmaceuticalpromotionhaveonbehaviour?Thisreviewlooksattheevidenceforseveraldifferentpossibleeffectsofpromotion on behaviour. These are the impact of promotion onindividualprescribingbehaviour,onoveralldrugsales,andonrequestsforformularyadditions;theeffectofdirecttoconsumerdrugadvertisingon consumers decisions, the effect of promotion on the content ofcontinuingmedicaleducation(CME)courses,andtheimpactofindustry
funding
on
research
outcomes.
Review4. Whatinterventionshavebeentriedtocounterpromotionalactivities,andwithwhatresults?
This review reports on research on interventions to control or counterpromotion,andtheeffectsofsuchinterventions.Itisnotacomprehensivereview of interventions,because there aremanydescriptive reports ontheseinthedatabase.
The purpose of the reviews was to allow users of the database tounderstandtheresearchthathasbeendoneonpromotion,thestrengths
and weaknesses of that research, and to suggest directions for futureresearch.Thereviewswerelodgedonthewebsiteinmid2003.
Methodology
Thereviewssummarisetheresearchevidenceand,therefore,theydonotincludeall of thematerial contained in the database. Only entriesbased on originalresearch,systematicreviewsormetaanalysesare included.Suchentriesallhadwritten methodological notes. They were identified and extracted from the
databasebysearchingallentriesthatincludedamethodologicalnote.ThissearchtookplaceinNovember2001.Studiesthatwerepurelydescriptiveofpromotionwereexcluded,andallstudieswhich touched insomewayon the four reviewquestionswere then included. The reviewswere drafted, and inJuly 2002 afurthergroupofrelevantnewerstudieswereaddedtothereviews.Itisintendedthatthereviewswillbeupdatedperiodicallyasthedatabasegrows.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
17/102
Review 1
7
Review 1.
What attitudes do professional and laypeople have to promotion?
Findingoutwhatpeoplethinkaboutpromotion,andwhateffecttheythinkithason them, is importantbecause itcanhelpus todevelop relevant interventions.However,researchonthistopiccannotprovideevidenceabouttheactualeffectsofpromotion.Promotionmayaffectpeopleinwaysthattheydonotknowabout,orarereluctanttotellothersabout.
Thisreviewdescribesstudiesthatexaminewhatpeoplethinkaboutpromotion.Studiesabouthowpeopleusepromotionandothersourcesofdruginformationarenotincludedhere;thesecanbefoundinReview2.
Researchonattitudestopromotionreliesheavilyonsurveymethods.Ittendstoprovide estimates of how many people agree with or disagree with certainstatements, mostly about the appropriateness and effect of various forms ofpromotion. There are somemore complex studies, which attempt to exploreothervariablesassociatedwithdifferentattitudestopromotion.Thesetrytofind
out
what
kinds
of
people
have
different
opinions
on
promotion.
Such
studies
are
moreuseful.
Thereislittlequalitativeresearchonpeoplesattitudestopromotion,andthisisamajorgap.Inordertounderstandpeoplesperspectivesandvaluesmoreclearly,indepth interviews are needed. People shouldbe express themselves in theirown way about what they think about promotion and how it affects them.Ethnographic research, inwhich the researcher spends timewith doctors andtries tounderstandhowpromotion fits into theirworking lives,wouldalsobeuseful.
1.1Attitudesdonotnecessarilymatchbehaviour
Severalstudiesshow that findingoutwhatpeople thinkaboutpromotionmaynotbeagoodwaytopredicttheirbehaviour.Forexample,PeayandPeays1984paper1suggestsadoctorsviewoftheworthinessofaninformationsourcemaynot be reflected in how often s/he uses it. Sales representatives and othercommercialsourceswerenotevaluatedhighly,butsalesrepresentativeswerethemost frequentsourceof first informationaboutmedicines,andwereoneof the
most frequentlymentioned sources of information needed to prescribe.Othercommercial sourceswere also oftenmentioned as sources of first informationabout a drug. Similarly, Gambrill and BridgesWebb found that 56% of the
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
18/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
8
Australiandoctorsintheirstudyreportedthattheyusedsalesrepresentativesasaregularsourceof information,butonly17%rankedthemas themostuseful2.McCue et al.3 surveyed generalpractitioners (GPs), internists and surgeons inNorth Carolina, about their attitudes towards and use of different sources of
information
about
new
drugs.
Although
only
27.7%
of
the
respondents
viewed
drug sales representatives as accurate and accessible sources of informationaboutnewdrugs,theywereusedmorefrequentlythanothersources.Thisstudyhadalowresponserate.
1.2 Studies of the prevalence of different attitudes to promotion
(excludingdirecttoconsumeradvertising)
These are studies that simply assesspercentages ofpeoplewho report certain
attitudesorbeliefsaboutpromotion.Somedostarttoexploredifferenceswithintheirsamples,butthisisnottheirmainobjective.Manyofthesestudieslookattheattitudesofmedicalstudents,doctorsintrainingprogrammes,theirtrainers,orpatients.Few studies look atpracticingdoctors,or at thepublic ingeneral.Studies are oftenbased at one or two institutions (usually in theUSA and/orCanada),orarewrittenquestionnairessenttodirectorsoftrainingprogrammesaround theUSA and/orCanada.Most studies focus ondoctors in training ortheir trainers, examining and discussing what is an appropriate relationshipbetweenpromotionandtraining.
Surveysoftheprevalenceofdifferentattitudesinclude:Hodges4wholookedatpsychiatryresidents,internsandclerksinsevenCanadianhospitals;Sergeantetal.5wholookedatfamilymedicineresidentsinOntario;Aldiretal.s6surveyofpracticingandresidentdoctorsinNortheasternOhio,USA,abouttheirviewsofpromotion;BarnesandHolcenbergs7surveyofmedicalandpharmacystudentsat theUniversityofWashington in1970;BlakeandEarlys8surveyofMissouripatients about their attitudes to gifts givenby pharmaceutical companies todoctors; Madhaven et al.9, who surveyed West Virginia doctors about theirattitudetogiftsfromtheindustry;andKeims10surveyofdirectorsofemergencymedicineprogrammes,and residents in theseprogrammes,about theirattitude
tointeractionswiththepharmaceuticalindustry.Othersinclude:Mainousetal.11,whosurveyed649adults inKentuckyabouttheirattitudestodoctorsacceptinggiftsfromthepharmaceuticalindustry;Reederetal.12,whosurveyedallchiefsofUS emergencymedicine residency programmes; Strang et al.13who surveyedCanadiandoctors;Lichsteinetal.14whosurveyeddirectorsof internalmedicineresidencyprogrammes;andDunnetal.15whosurveyedOntariophysicians.
CONCLUSION:These studiesdonot suggestanyclearpatterns inattitudes topromotion.Furtherresearchwouldberequiredtodetermineifvariationsinthefindingsdepend on thepopulation surveyed, and on theway questionswere
asked,whoaskedthequestions,andinwhatcontext.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
19/102
Review 1
9
1.3 Do trainers and trainees think that sales representatives should be
bannedduringmedicaltraining?
Most (71%) psychiatry trainees surveyed by Hodges disagreed that salesrepresentatives shouldbebanned frommaking presentations in their trainingprogramme4.Mostdirectors of internalmedicine residencyprogrammes (67%)felt that thebenefits of sales representatives outweighed the negative effects.Fortytwo per cent felt that curtailing sales representative interactions withresidents would jeopardise company sponsorship of other departmentalactivities14.OftheinternalmedicinefacultyandresidentssurveyedbyMcKinneyet al.16, 52%of faculty and66%of residentsagreed thatpresentationsby salesrepresentativesshouldbebannedattheirinstitutions.
CONCLUSION:Only threestudies in thedatabaseaddress thisquestion:sometrainersandtraineesdo,othersdonotthinkthatsalesrepresentativesshouldbebanned,andqualitativestudieswouldbeneededtodiscovertheirreasons.
1.4 Do doctors think they have enough training to deal with sales
representatives?
Seventy per cent of psychiatry trainees did not feel they had had sufficienttraining about interacting with sales representatives4. Only 10% of internal
medicinefaculty
and
residents
surveyed
by
McKinney
et
al.
16felt
they
had
had
enough training for professional interviewswith sales representatives.On theotherhand,90%ofthepracticingdoctorsand87%oftheresidentsinAldiretal.sstudy felt that they had had sufficient training to critically understandinformationfromcompanies6.
CONCLUSION:Only three studies in thedatabaseaddressed thisquestion. Intwostudiesthevastmajorityindicatedthattheydidnothaveadequatetrainingtointeractwithrepresentatives.However,inanotherstudythevastmajoritysaidthat they had sufficient training to critically understand information from
pharmaceuticalcompanies.
This
discrepancy
may
arise
from
differences
in
the
framingof thequestions, forexample, locating thedeficiency in the trainingasopposedtointheindividual.
1.5 Do doctors think that sales representatives have a valuable role in
medicaleducation?
Twentynine per cent of psychiatry trainees agreed that sales representativeshavean importantteachingrole(although inthetextthis isdescribedas more
than 40%)4. Eighty per cent of the US emergency medicine chief residentsthought that their residencyprogrammebenefited from interactionswith salesrepresentatives. Only six chief residents indicated very strong opposition to
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
20/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
10
allowing residents to interactwith sales representatives12. In Bucci and Freysstudy17 of US family practice residency programmes, 48.3% of programmedirectors felt that sales representatives were a valuable drug informationresourceforresidents,and55.1%felttheywerevaluableforpracticingdoctors.
In Dunns study of Ontario physicians, about 10% of doctors ratedpharmaceuticalhandoutsasanimportantorveryimportantcontinuingmedicaleducation resource (10.9%ofprimarycaredoctorsand12.2%ofhospitalbasedspecialists)15.Hayesetal.18surveyedgeneralpractitioners intheUKabouttheirinvolvement in and attitudes towards industry involvement in continuingmedicaleducation.They found thatmostGPs (90%)hadhadmeetingsat theirpracticeforwhichpharmaceuticalcompaniesorganizedtheeducationalcontent.Thecharacteristicofthesewhichwasmostdisliked,particularlybytrainersandthoseinpracticeformorethaneightyears,wasthepromotionalaspect.
CONCLUSION:Thestudiesreportedhereallaskquitedifferent(andrelativelyuseless)questions.Opinionsabout thevalueofsalesrepresentativesaremixed;againdifferencesmayhave resulted from theway inwhich thequestionwasframed,andmoreresearchwouldbeneededtoclarifythis.
1.6 What do health professionals think about the quality of the
informationprovidedbysalesrepresentativesandadvertisementsabout
drugs?
Thirtytwopercentof thepsychiatry traineessurveyedbyHodgesagreed thatsalesrepresentativesprovideusefulandaccurateinformationonnewdrugs(25%for established drugs)4. Fiftyeight per cent of family medicine residents inSergeantetal.s study5 felt that the literatureprovidedby sales representativeswasuseful.
NinetytwopercentoftheCanadiandoctorssurveyedbyStrangetal.13feltthatsales representativeshadproductpromotion as theirmajor goal, and 80% feltthey overemphasised medicines effectiveness. Fortyseven per cent of the
doctors inEaton andParishs study19 felt that theywerenot able to obtain anunbiased assessmentof anewly introduceddrug.Mostof them felt thatmostdruginformationwastoocommercialandthereforebiased.
InaNewZealand study,Thomsonetal.20 found that58outofa sampleof67doctorssawsalesrepresentatives.Inresponsetoanopenendedquestionaboutwhy,56ofthemgaveareasonrelatedtolearningaboutneworexistingproducts.ThedirectorofthePharmaceuticalManufacturersAssociationofNewZealanddescribedasurveyofdoctors,inalettertotheeditoroftheNewZealandMedicalJournal21. Without giving methodological details, he claimed that most New
Zealanddoctors felt thatsalesrepresentativesareagoodsourceof informationaboutdrugsandrecognisepractitionersinformationneeds,butareoverbiasedtowardstheirownproducts.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
21/102
Review 1
11
Incontrast,only16%ofUKGPssurveyedbyHayesetal.foundvisitsbysalesrepresentatives to be educationally valuable18. University and communitypracticedoctorssurveyedbySheareretal.22rateddirectmail,journaladvertisinganddetailersas the three least reliablesourcesofdrug information.Doctors in
community
hospitals
ranked
the
representatives
they
saw
higher
than
university
hospitaldoctors ranked those repswhom they saw.Whelanetal.23 report thatstaffmembersinafamilymedicineresidencytrainingprogrammeinCanadadidnotratesalesrepresentativesasaveryusefulsourceof information inresponsetodruginformationquestions.Theyratedthempoorlyonallaspects:frequencyof use, availability, ease of use, understandability, helpfulness, extensiveness,and howmuch confidence they had in them.AmongCockerill andWilliamsOntario pharmacists24, a minority of the respondents (25%) said salesrepresentativeswereanimportantsourceofinformation,whileonly17%thoughtadvertisementsandpromotionalliteraturewere.Drugsalesrepresentativeswere
never
mentioned
as
sources
of
information
for
the
complex
clinical
case
studies
usedbyBoerkampet al.25.Themajorityofpsychiatrists shown advertisementsforpsychotropicsbyLionetal.26didnotfindthemattractiveorinformative.
SixtyeightpercentofdoctorsworkinginaTurkishcitysurveyedbyGldalandSemin27 thought the information providedby representatives was unreliable.Ninetyfourpercentfeltareliablesourceofinformationaboutdrugs,otherthanpharmaceuticalcompanies,wasneeded.
Benseman28 found that the 45 New Zealand doctors he surveyed expressed
varying
degrees
of
anger
and
frustration
at
the
waste
involved
in
the
material
theywere sentbydrug companies.Almost all felt that companymaterialwasbiased and should notbe taken at face value.However they preferred drugcompany sponsoredjournals to academicjournals,because they found themmorerelevanttogeneralpractice.
Mackowiak et al.29 surveyed a small convenience sample of US communitypharmacistsandasmallsampleofpharmacystudentsaboutadvertisementsforoverthecounter drugs in pharmacyjournals. In theUSA, advertisements foroverthecounter medicines are regulatedby the Federal Trade Commission.Theymustbe truthful andnotmisleading.This is a lower standard than thatenforced for prescription drugs. Around half the pharmacists, and students,surveyed by Mackowiak regarded the advertisements they were shown asmisleadingandnottruthful.Howevertheyalsoreportedhigh levelsofrelianceon them.Most respondents (90%ofpharmacistsand81%of students) thoughtregulations for overthecounter products shouldbe the same as prescriptionproducts.
InastudyofhealthcareprovidersinAfrica30,commissionedbytheInternationalFederation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations and the USPharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, 95% of those who receivedcompanyprovided information reported finding it helpful. The design of thisstudyisnotwelldescribed.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
22/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
12
CONCLUSION:Doctorsopinions on theusefulnessof information fromdrugcompaniesvarybutmostbelievethatsuchinformationisbiased.
1.7Whatdoothergroupsofpeoplethinkofpromotionalinformation?
Journalistswhowroteaboutmedicinesclaimedtobecriticalofmaterialfromthedrug industry ina studybyvanTrigtetal.31.Companieswerenot consideredimportant sources for drug information in general,but themanufacturerwasseenasamajorsourceofinformationwhenanewdrugwasregisteredorbecameavailable.
CONCLUSION:Onlyonestudy in thedatabaseaddresses thisquestion. Moreresearchisneeded.
1.8 What are doctors views of pharmaceutical company support of
conferencesandspeakers?
Most of the psychiatry trainees surveyedbyHodges4 (77%) agreed that salesrepresentatives support important conferences and speakers. Most familymedicine residents surveyed by Sergeant et al.5 agreed that the content ofcontinuingmedicaleducationactivitiesshouldbesetbythedoctorsorganizingthem,ratherthanthecompanysponsoringthem.
CONCLUSION:Only two studies in thedatabase address thisquestion.Moreresearchisneeded.
1.9 Do trainee doctors plan to see sales representatives in their future
practice?
Most (76%) family medicine residents in one Canadian centre surveyed bySergeant et al. planned to see representatives in their future practice5. Asignificant minority (42%) of the Canadian psychiatry trainees surveyed byHodges4 said theywould notmaintain the same degree of contactwith salesrepresentativesifnogiftsweredistributed.
CONCLUSION:Only two Canadian studies from 1994 and 1996 address thisquestion.Datafromrecentgraduateswouldbeuseful.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
23/102
Review 1
13
1.10 Whatareprofessionalsandpatientsattitudestotheappropriateness
ofgifts?
Most(55%)ofthefamilymedicineresidentssurveyedbySergeantetal.saidthattheywould attend a private dinnerwith a sales representative paid forby acompany.Thirtysixpercentfeltthatgiftsfromsalesrepresentativestodoctorsresulted inhigherdrugcostsforpatients5.ThedoctorssurveyedbyAldiretal.felt that smallergiftsweremore appropriate thanmorevaluableones6.Of theCanadian doctors surveyed by Strang et al.13 85% agreed that salesrepresentativesshouldbeabletoofferfreesamples,but74%felttheyshouldnotbeabletoofferallexpensespaidtripstomeetingsorganizedbycompanies.
MorethanhalfoftheresidentssurveyedbyKeimetal.10,reportedacceptinggiftssuchastextbooksbecausetheyneededfinancialassistancewiththeireducation.Seventyeightpercentofprogrammedirectorsand92%of studentsbelieved itwasappropriatetoaccepttextbooksfromdrugsalesrepresentatives.Keimetal.found that thosewhoweremore sensitive tobioethical issues ingeneralwereless willing to accept noneducational gifts. Twentyfive per cent of residentdoctors in Virginia surveyedby Sigworth et al.32 said they would not wantpatientstoknowthattheyhadreceivedgiftsandawardsfromdrugcompaniesandwouldtrytohidethis.
In a simplebut clever research design, Palmisano and Edelstein33 asked 100medicalstudentsand100familyplanningnursesabouttheproprietyofvariouspeopleacceptinggifts.Ofthe50medicalstudentswhowereasked,85.4%feltitwasimproperforagovernmentofficialtoacceptaUS$50giftfromsomeonewhowantedtogainacontract.Oftheother50students,46%feltitwasimproperforamedicalstudent toacceptaUS$50gift fromadrugcompany.Thenursesweredividedintothreegroupsandaskeddifferentversionsofthequestion.Ofthosewhowereasked,97%felt itwas improperforthegovernmentofficialtoacceptthegift,64%feltitwasimproperforaresidentdoctortoacceptthegift,butonly30%feltitwasimproperforanursepractitionertoacceptthegift.Amongstthe
Turkish doctors surveyedbyGldal and Semin27 33% felt that giftswere notethical,36% felt theywerenotethical in some respects,and21% felt thatgiftswereethical.
Sixtyfourper cent of thepatients surveyedbyBlake andEarly8believed thatgifts would increase the costs ofmedicines. They approvedmore of doctorsaccepting some gifts, like drug samples, medical books,ballpoint pens andconference expenses, than others, such as dinners, baby formula and golftournaments.Men, older people and thosewith tertiary educationweremorelikelytodisapproveofgifts.Theyweremorelikelytodisapproveofgifts(except
free samples) if they felt that these influencedprescribing and increased cost.Onelimitationofthisstudywasthatmanypatientswereunawarethatsuchgiftsweregiven,sohadlittletimetoconsidertheiropinionofthemwhilecompleting
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
24/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
14
thequestionnaire.InMainousetal.sKentuckystudy11manymorepeople(82%)wereawarethatdoctorsreceivedofficebasedgiftsthanpersonalgifts(32%).Thisstudy used a populationbased sample, rather than a practicebased sample.Substantialminoritiesofpeoplefeltthatgiftshadanegativeeffectonhealthcare
costs
(42%
for
personal
and
26%
for
office
gifts)
and
health
care
quality
(23%
for
personal and 13% for office gifts). Thesebeliefsweremore common amongstrespondentswithhigherlevelsofeducation.
Gibbonsetal.34askeddoctorsandpatientsabout the same listof10gifts,andfoundthatpatientsratedthegiftsaslessappropriateandmorelikelytoinfluenceprescribing thandoctorsdid.Thosewith higher levels of education (i.e. thosewhohadcompletedhighschool)weremorelikelytothinkthatthecostofgiftswaspassedontopatients.Beforethesurveyabouthalfofthepatients(54%)wereawarethatdoctorsacceptedsuchgifts.Ofthosewhowerepreviouslyunawareof
this,
24%
said
that
learning
about
them
had
changed
their
perception
of
the
medicalprofession.
CONCLUSION: Seven studies in the database address the question ofprofessionalsattitudestogifts.Thestudiesavailablesuggestthatthereisarangeofviewsaboutgiftsbutatendencyforgiftsthatweresmallerormorerelevanttohelping patients to be regarded as more acceptable. There is evidence thatprofessionals believe that their acceptance of gifts goes below communitystandardsandtheirownstandardsforotherpeopleinpositionsofresponsibility.
Three
studies
in
the
database
address
the
question
of
lay
peoples
attitudes
to
gifts.Thestudiesavailable suggest thatonlyaminorityareaware thatdoctorsreceive personal gifts, so only aminority disapprove,but peoplewith higherlevelsofeducationweremorelikelytodisapprove.
1.11 Do health professionals feel that discussions with sales
representativesaffectprescribing?
Thirtyfive per cent of the psychiatry trainees inHodges study4 agreed that
discussions with sales representatives did not influence their prescribingbehaviour.Thisattitudewaslessprevalentamongmoreseniortrainees.AmongtheCanadianfamilymedicineresidentsintheSergeantetal.5study,34%agreedand43%disagreedthatsalesrepresentativesinfluencedtheirprescribinghabits.Inemergencymedicine,Keimetal.10foundthat75%ofprogrammedirectors,butonly 49% of residents, believed that marketing techniques affect residentsprescribing practices. Seventy per cent of the Canadian doctors surveyedbyStrangetal.13 agreed that sales representatives affectedphysiciansprescribinghabits. Thirtyone per cent of the internal medicine residency programmedirectors surveyed by Lichstein et al. were concerned, and 13% were very
concerned, about the impact of sales representatives on the attitudes andprescribing behaviours of their residents14. Most directors of family practiceresidencyprogrammesintheUSA(56%)feltthattheinformationandresources
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
25/102
Review 1
15
provided by sales representatives affected the prescribing of residents andpracticingdoctors17.
Bansinathetal.35statethatonly56%ofIndiancardiologistsreportthatmedical
sales
representatives
had
played
a
role
in
their
decisions
to
prescribe
brand
or
generic drugs. Sixtythree per cent of doctors in a Turkish city surveyedbyGldal and Semin27 felt that information from sales representatives did notinfluence their prescribing. Those who found information from salesrepresentativesreliabletendedtoreportthatthisinformationhadmoreinfluenceonthem.
American general practitioners surveyed by Pitt and Nel36 rated salesrepresentatives as the third most important influence on their prescribingdecisions,advertisementsas fifthandgiftsassixth.However, thisstudyhada
low
response
rate
and
excluded
journal
articles
in
the
list
of
possible
influences.
Clinical pharmacists involved in family medicine residency programmes,surveyedbyHume and Shaughnessy37, rated sales representatives, alongwithjournal articles, as the third most important source of drug informationinfluencingtheprescribingoffamilymedicineresidents.
InSigworthetal.s32studyofresidentdoctorsinVirginiain2000,91%reportedthat sales representatives had some effect on their prescribing. The authorssuggestthatthishighratecouldbetheresultofrecentpublicityanddiscussiononthese issues,althoughtheresidentshadnothadformaleducationalsessions
on
drug
promotion.
CONCLUSION: Many doctors denied that they were influenced by drugrepresentatives: in threestudiesofresidents34,49and91%believedtheywereaffected, in three groups of programme directors 75, 31 and 56% did so. Theavailabledatasuggestthatdoctorsmaybemorewillingtosaythatotherdoctorsareinfluencedthantheyarethemselves,butthisremainsahypothesis.
1.12 Dopeoplefeelthatacceptinggiftsinfluencesprescribing?
Most (56%) of the psychiatry trainees surveyedbyHodges felt that acceptinggiftsdidnot influence theirprescribing4. In theAldiretal. study6 fewdoctorsthought that a gift of a textbook influenced prescribing habits (less than 6%).Similarly, they felt that lunchesordinnersprovidedby the industryhad littleinfluence on them, although they did feel that free samples affected theirprescribing.InBarnesandHolcenbergsstudy,60%ofmedicalstudentsand75%of pharmacy students felt that promotional practices influenced prescribing7.PatientssurveyedbyBlakeandEarly8alsofeltthatgiftsfromthepharmaceuticalindustrytodoctorswerelikelytoinfluenceprescribing(6%saiditneverdid,18%
said
rarely,
43%
sometimes,
and
16%
frequently).
They
were
more
likely
to
disapprove of gifts (except free samples) if they felt that they influencedprescribing and increased cost. One limitation of this study was that many
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
26/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
16
patientswereunawarethatsuchgiftsweregiven,sohad littletimetoconsidertheiropinionofthemwhilecompletingthequestionnaire.
EighteenpercentoftheTurkishdoctors inGldalandSeminsstudy27feltthat
gifts
strongly
affected
prescribing,
12%
felt
they
had
a
medium
effect,
44%
low,
and27%feltthattheyhadnoeffectonprescribing.
Madhaven et al.9, found that physiciansweremore likely to think that otherdoctors prescribingwasinfluencedbygifts,thanthattheirownwas.Theyalsofounddoctorswithmorepatientswerelesslikelytoagreethatmostdoctorsareinfluencedby gifts and less likely to think it is inappropriate to accept gifts.Banks and Mainous38 surveyed medical school faculty at the University ofKentucky,USA.Ofalistofgiftsgivenbysalesrepresentatives,nonewereseenasinfluencingprescribingbymorethanhalfoftherespondents,althoughpersonal
relationships
with
sales
representatives
were
seen
as
influencing
prescribing
by
66% of faculty. PhD staffweremore likely thanMD staff to think that giftsinfluenced prescribing, and to oppose the acceptance of gifts. Most internalmedicine faculty and residents surveyedbyMcKinney et al.16 felt thatdoctorscouldbecompromisedbyacceptinggifts(67%and77%).Howeversome(23%offaculty members and 15% of residents) believed that doctors could not becompromised regardless of the value of the gift received. In Cockerill andWilliams24surveyofOntariopharmacists,50%felttherewasaconflictofinterestinacceptingbenefitsfromthedrugindustry.Thoselicensedafter1980werelesslikelytothinkso.
CONCLUSION: Inmoststudiesmostdoctorsdenied that theywere influencedbygifts.Theavailabledatasuggestthatdoctorsmaybemorewillingtosaythatotherdoctorsareinfluencedthantheyarethemselvesbutthishypothesismeritsmoreresearch.Theonlystudyonpatientsattitudesfoundtheyweremorelikelyto disapprove of gifts (except free samples) if they felt that they influencedprescribing.
1.13 Ethicsandpromotion
SeventyfourpercentoftheemergencymedicineresidentssurveyedbyKeimetal.10feltthatsalesrepresentativessometimescrossedethicalboundariesbygivinggifts. Fourteen per cent of internal medicine residency programme directorsreportedobservingunethicalactivitiesbysalesrepresentatives10.Theseincludeddetailing in clinical areas, making false claims, giving monetary gifts, andconductingunauthorisedstudies.
AstudybyPoirieretal.39ofpeoplewhomakedecisionsaboutformulariesinUSprivate hospitals, found that most (93%) felt that providing nonmonetary
benefits
to
doctors
to
influence
formulary
decisions
or
product
use
was
unethical.
Therespondentsincludedchairsofpharmacologyandtherapeuticscommittees,directors of pharmacy, and pharmacists involved in evaluating drugs for
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
27/102
Review 1
17
inclusioninformularies.Morepharmaciststhandoctorsratedprovidingmealstoinfluencedecisionsasunethical(22%versus12%).
AUSstudybyLaPumaetal.40examinedpaymentstodoctorstoparticipate in
post
marketing
research
on
new
medicines.
Most
of
the
doctors
they
surveyed
(64%) felt itwas acceptable tobepaid a fee for eachpatient enrolled inpostmarketing research.Mostpatients (56%) felt that thiswasunacceptable.Fewerdoctorsthanpatientsfeltthatpatientsshouldbeinformedifthedoctorwasbeingpaidafeeperpatientenrolled(75%versus86%).
CONCLUSION:Only four studieshaveaddressed this issueandeachof themlooked at different aspects of the question, making it hard to draw anyconclusions.Fromonestudyitappearsthatdoctorsthinkthatitismoreethicaltoacceptfeesforenrollingpatientsinclinicaltrialsthandopatients.
1.14Attitudestodirecttoconsumeradvertisingofprescriptiondrugs
Since the introduction of directtoconsumer advertising of prescriptionmedicines (DTCA) in the USA in the 1980s, there have been phenomenalincreases in spendingon it.Oneestimatewas that in 1999,US$1.6billionwasspentonDTCA41.
Doctors
Petroshius et al.42 describe the results of a questionnaire delivered to doctors(general practitioners, family practitioners, internists and dermatologists) bysalesrepresentativesaspartoftheirnormalvisits.Theyfoundolderdoctorsandinterniststobe lesssupportiveofadvertisingofdrugsandcosmeticdrugsthanotherdoctors.ThiswasespeciallythecasewithDTCA.Thoseagedover50hadanegative response to DTCA (mean response was 2.84 on a scale from 1 forstrongly agree, to 5 for strongly disagree). The authors found that doctorsattitudestowardsDTCAweregoodpredictorsofwhethertheypaidattentiontosuchadvertisements,andhowtheysaidtheywouldrespondtopatientenquiriesand requests foradvertiseddrugs.This studyobviouslyexcludeddoctorswhodonotreceivesalesrepresentatives.
CutrerandPleilfoundlargelynegativeattitudestowardsDTCAofprescriptionmedicinesamongtheTexasdoctorstheysurveyed43.Howevertheirresponseratewas very low (17%).Doctors felt thatDTCAwould increase the demand fordrugs,andincreasequestioningbypatients.
LipskyandTaylor44 surveyeda2% sampleofactivemembersof theAmericanAcademyofFamilyPhysiciansabouttheirattitudestoDTCA.Doctorsreportedanaverageof6.9patients in theprevious sixmonthswho requesteda specificprescriptiondrug,althoughthearticleisnotexplicitaboutwhetherdoctorswereasked specifically about requests that resulted fromDTCA.Eightyper cent ofthose surveyedwere opposed to printDTCA and 84% opposed tobroadcast
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
28/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
18
DTCA.While therewas some agreement about possible positive outcomes ofDTCA (56% agreed that it encourages patients to seek medical advice forconditions thatmay otherwise gountreated, and 73% that it alertspatients tonewproducts),therewasalsoconsensusaboutpossiblenegativeoutcomes(89%
disagreed
that
DTCA
enhances
the
doctor
patient
relationship,
71%
agreed
that
DTCApressuresdoctorstousedrugstheymightnotordinarilyuse,and72%feltDTCAdiscouragestheuseofgenerics).
CONCLUSION:DoctorsarelargelyopposedtoDTCA.
Consumers
Lipton, a public relations executive from the USA, reports on a survey ofconsumersattitudestoDTCA45.Themethodologyofthestudyisnotdescribed.Half of the people thought that DTCA would provide them with more
informationaboutprescriptiondrugs.Thosewhowerebettereducated,younger,andthosewithhigherincomeswerelesslikelytofeelthatDTCAwouldincreasetheirknowledgeaboutspecificdrugs.
Bell,KravitzandWilkes46surveyed329adults inSacramento,California,abouttheirawareness,knowledgeandattitudestoDTCA.Theyaskedwhetherpeoplerememberedadvertisementsfor10differentdrugs,andfoundrecognitionvariedbetween 8% and 72% for different drugs. Men reported seeing feweradvertisements than women. There was greater awareness of advertisementsamongst sufferersof the conditions treatedby the advertisedmedicines.More
positive attitudes to DTCA were correlated with greater awareness of DTCadvertisements.Theauthors found significantpublicmisconceptionsabout theregulatoryframeworkforDTCA.FiftypercentofrespondentsbelievedthatDTCadvertisementshad tobesubmitted to thegovernment forpriorapproval,43%thought that only completely safe prescription drugs couldbe advertised toconsumers,21%thoughtthatonlyextremelyeffectivedrugscouldbeadvertisedto consumers, and 22% thought the advertising of prescription drugs withserious sideeffects wasbanned. None of thesebeliefs are true. People fromminority ethnicgroupsweremoremisinformed thanwhites.PositiveattitudestowardsDTCAwerepositivelycorrelatedwiththesemisconceptions.
Prevention magazine carries out regular surveys which include consumersknowledge or and attitudes to DTCA. Telephone interviews with arepresentativesampleof1,222adultsintheUSAweredescribedinthe2000/2001report41. Lower levels of awareness of DTCA advertising (i.e., reporting everhavingseenaDTCadvertisement)were foundamongstethnicminorities, lowincomeconsumers,andthosenottakingprescriptionmedicines.Ninetyonepercentofrespondentsreportedhavingseenanadvertisementforatleastoneof10highly advertisedmedicines (such asClaritin,Xenical). Fiftysevenper centofconsumers thought DTCA gave them the necessary information to ask their
doctorsabouttherisksofthemedicines(62%foraskingaboutbenefits).
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
29/102
Review 1
19
MagazinePublishersofAmerica47surveyedallergysufferersintheUSA.Intheirsample,34%hadseenadvertisementsforallergymedicinesinmagazines,while36%hadseensuchadvertisementsonTV.Nineteenpercentwereabletoidentifythebrand foradvertisements ineachmedium.Since less is spentonmagazine
advertising
than
TV
advertising,
the
authors
argue
that
advertising
in
magazines
is more costeffective. They also report that the perceived believability ofadvertisements for medicines has declined since restrictions on DTCA wererelaxedin1997.
MaddoxandKatsanis48surveyedconsumersinaCanadiancitythatwasexposedtoDTCAadvertisingfromtheUSA.Theyconstructedtwoscenariosinvolvingafictitiousdrug.PatientswhoweregiventhescenariowheretheyheardaboutthedrugthroughDTCA,askedtheirdoctorforit,andreceivedaprescription,weremoreconfident in theirdoctors than thosewhosescenariowas that theyheard
about
the
medicine
from
their
doctor
first.
This
study
had
a
rather
low
response
rate,andthediscussionandconclusionsincludeassertionsthatdonotappeartobejustifiedbythefindings.
Rockwell describes the attitudes of a sample of viewers of a US cable TVchannel49.Heisthepresidentofthischannel,whichshowsprogrammesintendedforandadvertisedtohealthprofessionals.Advertisementsforprescriptiondrugshavebeenshownduringtheseprogrammessince1983.Theprogrammesprovedtobepopularwiththegeneralpublicwhosubscribedtothischannel.Asurveyofthe nonprofessional viewers of these programmes found that 95% of them
thought
DTCA
would
make
patients
aware
that
useful
treatments
exist.
Rockwell
suggests that negative public attitudes toDTCA found in other studies are aresultof fearof theunknown,but thosewhohavebeenexposed toDTCAarepositive towards it.However it seems untenable to assume that peoplewhowatch programmes intended for healthprofessionals are representative of thegeneralpopulation.
Alperstein andPeyrot50 surveyed 440people inBaltimore,USA.They found amoderatelevelofawarenessofDTCA.Thirtyfivepercentofpeoplehadheardof prescription drug advertising, and given a prompt, 42% were aware ofadvertisementsforSeldane(anantihistamine).MostrespondentsfeltthatDTCAcould help educate consumers (70%), while aminority agreed with possibleobjectionstoDTCA.Twentyeightpercentfeltitwouldconfuseconsumers,21%thataskingforanadvertisedproductwouldupsetadoctor,and12%thatDTCAwould weaken the doctorpatient relationship. Respondents of higher socioeconomicstatusweremoreawareofDTCAadvertising.Thosewhoweremoreawareoftheadvertisementswerelesslikelytobelievethatthedoctorshouldbethe sole source of information about drugs, that DTCA would confuseconsumers,andthatitwouldweakenthedoctorpatientrelationship.
CONCLUSION:MostoftheavailablestudiesreportmostlypositiveattitudestoDTCAamongstconsumers.Theapparentpositiveattitudescouldhaveresultedfrom theways the questionswere framed or thepopulationwere sampled or
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
30/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
20
whoundertookthestudies.SocialandeducationaldifferencesseemtoinfluenceacceptanceofDTCA:thelesseducatedmayacceptitmorereadily.
Others
Mintzesandcolleagues51conductedamailsurveyofexpertsinNewZealand,theUSA andCanada, on their views ofDTCA, and the evidence that supportedtheseviews.(DTCAisallowedintheUSAandNewZealand,andCanadiansareexposed to significant crossborder broadcast DTCA). The experts includedpeople from health professional organizations, NGOs, government, thepharmaceuticalindustry,advertisingandthemedia.OpinionsaboutDTCAweredividedby sector. Those from the pharmaceutical and advertising industrieswereoverwhelminglypositive,patientrepresentativesshowedalesserdegreeofsupport, andother expertshadnegativeopinionsofDTCA.Most respondentsfeltthattheinformationDTCAprovidedaboutdrugrisksandbenefitswaspoor.
Respondents feltDTCA increased expenditure onmedicines,butbeliefs abouttheimpactondoctorpatientcommunicationvariedaccordingtosector.
Inanotherstudy,mostofthe97CanadianDrugDirectoratepersonnelsurveyed52believedthatmoreprescriptiondruginformationwasneededforconsumers,butonlyaquarterof these thoughtadvertisingwasanappropriatemechanism forthis.
AmonkarandLively53mailedasurveytopharmacistsinoneOhiocounty.Theirstudyachieveda low response rate.Fortytwopercentof respondentsdidnot
thinkDTCA on televisionwasbeneficial to consumers.Althoughmost (75%)thought that advertisingmay inform patients about available treatments, andsome(32%)thought itmay improvepatientpharmacistcontact,most(90%)feltthere shouldbeprior review of advertisementsby an independentpanel, andmost(87%)feltadvertisingwouldprobably leadpatientstopressuredoctorstoprescribeadvertiseddrugs.
CONCLUSION:SurveysofexpertsbeliefsaboutDTCAsuggestthatthebeliefsexpresseddependonwhat sector the expertbelongs to,with industry expertsexpressingpositivebeliefs,patientadvocateshavingmixedbeliefsandmedical
expertshavingnegativebeliefs.
1.15 Studiesofdifferencesinattitudestopromotion(excludingDTCA)
Peay and Peays 1984 study1 found two reasonably clear patterns amongstdoctors. Thosewho reported usingjournals as important information sourcesevaluated journals more highly and commercial sources lower than otherdoctors.Thosedoctorswhoreportedusingcommercialsourcesratedthesemorehighlyandjournalslowerthanotherdoctors.Therewasagroupofabout15%ofdoctorswhoconsistentlyandexclusively reliedoncommercialsourcesofdruginformation. Those who cited sales representatives as providing information
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
31/102
Review 1
21
needed toprescribemedicineswere older, and thosewho citedjournalswereyounger.
AlthoughLinn andDaviss study54wasdone in 196970, there isno reason to
believe
that
the
findings
are
not
still
relevant.
Linn
and
Davis
found
that
doctors
who preferred to use medical journals as a source of advice had moreconservative attitudes in other areas than those who preferred salesrepresentativesorotherdoctors.Theformerwere lesspositiveabouttheuseofnonmedical sources of advice (such as friends and family), and the use ofmedicinesinresponsetodailysocialstress.
Amongst theNew Zealand doctors surveyedby Thomson et al.20 thosewhoreported peer advicebeing less readily available reported seeingmore salesrepresentatives. Cockerill and Williams24 surveyed Ontario pharmacists and
found
that
60%
of
them
placed
no
restrictions
on
visits
from
sales
representatives.Howeverthosewhobecamelicensedafter1980weremorelikelytohave restrictions.AndaleebandTallman55surveyeddoctors in four teachinghospitalsinPennsylvaniaandfoundthatdoctorswhotreatedahighervolumeofpatientsweremorepositivetowardssalesrepresentatives.Theywerealsomorelikely to think that theyprovided informationalandeducational support.Thisstudy had a low response rate. Stinson andMueller56 carried out a survey ofAlabamahealthprofessionals,whichincluded309doctorsaswellasotherhealthprofessionals. They found that doctors with more years of professionalexperiencereportedusingsalesrepresentativesandunsolicitedmedicalliterature
more
often
than
others,
and
that
general
or
family
practitioners
reported
using
themmorethanotherspecialists.
Evans andBeltramini57 found in their survey that respondentGPsweremorelikely tosolicit informationaboutprescriptiondrugs fromsales representativesthan specialists were, and that older doctors were more likely to use salesrepresentatives for information thanyoungerdoctors.Overall thedoctors theysurveyedpreferrednonindustrysourcesofprescriptiondrug information.Thisstudyhadalowresponserate,andresponsebiaswasnotassessed.
County doctors in Oppenheim et al.s study58 tended to rely more on salesrepresentativesasasourceofinformationonprices,comparedtootherdoctors;county physicians and faculty members had limited knowledge of medicinepricesandtendedtooverestimatethem.MillerandBlumalsofoundthatdoctorshad limitedknowledgeof thepriceofadvertisedprescriptionmedicines59.Thisstudy of doctors attending a continuingmedical education event had a lowresponserate.
Santell et al.60 surveyed hospital pharmacy directors and sales directors ofpharmaceuticalmanufacturing firms about the role of sales representatives inhospitals.The response ratewas low,particularly for the salesdirectors.Mostsales directors thought that sales representatives met the needs of hospitalpharmacistsmore than 80% of the time,butmosthospitalpharmacydirectors
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
32/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
22
thoughttheyweremet lessthan61%ofthetime.Therewasdisagreementbothaboutwhatserviceswereimportantandhowoftentheywereprovided.
Hull andMarshall61 report on an international study ofGPs sources of drug
information.
They
claim
that
sales
representatives
are
seen
as
very
important
in
Sweden, Finland and Yugoslavia (now Serbia and Montenegro) and notimportantintheUKandBelgium.Thereareverylownumbersinthestudy,andnodetailsaregivenabouttheselectionprocess,sotheresultsshouldbeviewedwithagreatdealof caution.However, the study raises the important issueofpotentiallylargenationaldifferencesinattitudestopromotion,whichshouldbetakenintoaccountwhendesigninginterventions.
CONCLUSION:Doctorsappear to fall intodifferentgroupswith regard to themost used sources of drug information. The available evidence suggests that
those
who
rely
more
on
information
from
industry
tend
to
be
older,
less
conservative,seemorepatients,aregeneralistsratherthanspecialists,have lessaccess to peer support andmore positive attitudes to the use of drugs. Thefinding that older doctors and general practitioners rely more heavily oncommercial sources of information comes from multiple sources but otherobservationsaboutdifferencesbetweenthoseusingnonindustryversusindustrysourceslackconfirmatoryevidencefrommorethanonestudy.
Summaryofconclusions
Doctors attitudes to promotion vary, and do not necessarily match theirbehaviour.Theiropinionsdifferonthevalueofsalesrepresentatives,onwhetherthey shouldbebanned duringmedical training and onwhether doctors areadequatelytrainedtointeractwiththem.
Mostdoctors think information frompharmaceutical companies isbiased,butmany think it is useful. Health professionals find small gifts from drugcompanies acceptable.Mostbelieve that drug representatives or gifts do notinfluencethempersonally,butdoinfluencemanycolleagues.Fewpatientsknow
that
doctors
receive
promotional
gifts,
and
so
few
disapprove.
Doctorswho rely on promotion tend tobe older, less conservative, seemorepatients,aregeneralpractitionersratherthanspecialists,havelessaccesstopeersandhaveamorepositiveattitudetowardsmedicines.
OpinionsaboutDTCAaremixed.Mostcompanies,theadvertisingindustryandthemediafavourit,whiledoctorsandothers(e.g.government,NGOsandhealthprofessional organizations) generally oppose it. Consumers and patients aredivided: some, especially the less educated,wouldwelcomemore information
from
whatever
source,
while
others
distrust
commercial
bias.
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
33/102
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
34/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
24
Qualitative researchcouldalsohelp toexplorewhat survey respondentsmeanwhentheysaythattheyorothersareinfluencedbypromotion.Dotheyincludeinformed (i.e. a positivemeaning) or do they interpret the question tomeanundulyornegativelyinfluenced?
Ethnographic research, which examines medical subcultures, would alsobeextremely helpful in exploring attitudes to promotion. It appears that doctorsvary substantially in their views of, and use of, promotion. How do thesedifferencescomeabout?Whatunderlies them?Do they reflectoveralldifferentpolitical and social views?Are they reflected in different social organizations(such as professional organizations, social networks, etc)?Whatbrings aboutchanges in thesevalues?Dodoctorsmovebetween themduring theirworkinglives?Whatfactorsenhanceorimpedethismovement?
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
35/102
Review 2
25
Review 2.
What impact does pharmaceuticalpromotion have on attitudes and
knowledge?
Manydescriptivestudiesclearlyshowthatmuchpromotionalmaterialcontainsinaccuracies,oratleastpresentsveryselectiveaccountsoftheevidenceaboutthedrugpresented62,63,64.Thequestionthisreviewaddressesiswhetherandhowfarpromotion (including these inaccuracies andbiases) affects the attitudes and
knowledgeofthosewhoareexposedtoit.
Verylittleresearchhaslookedspecificallyattheeffectofpromotiononattitudes,muchmore has examined the effect of promotion on knowledge. The studiesherearepartofa fieldof research into thedeterminantsofprescribing howdoctorslearnaboutdrugs,andhowtheycometoprescribenewproducts.
Mostofthestudiesdiscussedinthisreviewarereallyabouthowmuchdoctorsreport using promotion as a source of information (either for all drugs, orparticularlyfornewdrugs)ratherthanabouteffectsofpromotiononattitudesor
knowledge.Theyareincludedbecausetheyprovideinformationrelevanttothequestionofwhetherpromotionaffectsprescribersknowledge.
Some studies look directly at the impact of promotion on attitudes andknowledge,byusinganexperimentalapproach65,by interviewingpeopleaboutprevious exposure66, orby followingup participants in apromotional event67.Othersapproachthequestioninamoresophisticatedorindirectway.Ziegleretal.62lookatwhetherdoctorsnoticeandremembererrorsinpromotion.Sansgiryet al.68 look at whether consumers are aware of information missing fromadvertisements.Others63,64lookatdoctorsattitudesorknowledgeinareaswhere
there isdisagreementbetween commercial and scientific information and inferthe impactofpromotionfromthis.Ferryetal.69directlyassessedknowledgeofprescribingfortheelderlyandlookedatitinrelationtoselfassessedrelianceonpromotion.
Themethods that havebeen used in this area are not capable of producingcertainty about causal relationships. Firstlyboth exposure to promotion, andknowledgeandattitudesaboutdrugs,areoftenassessedusingselfreportdata.Secondly therelationshipbetweenthem isoftenalsoassessedusingselfreport.That is, doctors are asked how much their prescribing is influenced by
promotion. Selfreport canbemisleadingwhen doctorsbeliefs are inaccurate(e.g., theymaybelieve that theyareexposed lessoften than theyare),orwhen
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
36/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
26
their answers to questions arebiased towardsbeingmore socially acceptablethanwhattheyreallybelieve.
2.1Reporteduseofpromotionasasourceofdruginformation
In a 1974 FDA survey in the USA, 64% of all doctors, and 80% ofGPs andpaediatriciansreportedusingmaterialsfromsalesrepresentativesasasourceofdrug information. Fifty per cent of doctors reported using journaladvertisements70.ChristensenandWertheimer71foundthatsalesrepresentativeswerereportedtobethefirstsourceofinformationforoneofthetwodrugstheystudied.Advertisements injournalswere the third source for theotherdrugs.Thissmallstudy(29doctors)isnowveryold(19756).
Two
studies
found
doctors
in
developing
countries
relied
very
heavily
on
industrybased sources of information.Ahmad and Bhutta72 found 95% of thedoctors they interviewed inKarachi reliedupon industrypromotionalmaterialastheirmainsourceofinformationaboutdrugs.Theyalsofoundextremelyhighlevels of irrationalprescribing anddispensing for children. Similarly,TomsonandAngunawela73describeheavy relianceon industry sourcesof information,and much polypharmacy in a peripheral clinic in Sri Lanka. In contrast, inOsiobes twoNigerian studies74,75 health professionals and health professionalfacultymembersreportedlowuseofcommercialinformation.
Some
differences
have
been
described
between
different
kinds
of
drug
information, andover time. InHatton et al.s study sales representativeswereusedmoreasasourceofgeneralinformationaboutdrugsratherthanpregnancyrelated information76.WilliamsandHensel77claim from their reviewof studieson sourcesof informationaboutdrugs, thatcommercial sourcesof informationhaddeclinedinimportanceovertime.Theydonotdescribethesearchmethodsthattheyusedtolocatethearticlesincludedintheirreview.Thestudiesincludedinthisreviewwereallsurveysandsocialacceptabilitybiascouldbethecauseoftheresults,i.e.overtimeitmayhavebecomelessacceptabletoclaimrelianceoncommercialsourcesofinformation.
Somestudieshaveexploreddifferencesbetweendoctorsinhowfartheysaytheyrelyoncommercialsourcesofdruginformation.InMcCueetal.sstudy3doctorswhohadbeenpracticingmorethan15yearsuseddrugsalesrepresentativesasasourceofinformationaboutnewdrugsmorefrequentlythanotherdoctorsdid.In Abate et al.s study78 academic medicine physicians used drug industrysourcesfortheirdruginformationquestionslessthanprivatepracticephysiciansdid. Drug sales representatives were rated the most important source ofinformationaboutadvancesinantirheumaticdrugsbydoctorswhoqualifiedinthe1950s,thesecondmostimportantbythosewhoqualified inorafter1960in
Murray
Lyons
study
of
GPs
in
Scotland79
.
Gaither
et
al.80
found
that,
among
the
108MichiganHealthMaintenanceOrganization (HMO)doctors theysurveyed,those who were not Board certified weremore likely to intend to use sales
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
37/102
Review 2
27
representativesand literaturefromthepharmaceutical industrythanothers, forinformation about a fictitious new drug. Also those with more than fivecolleaguesattheirworksitewerelesslikelytouseindustryliterature.
CONCLUSION:
Doctors
own
reports
suggest
that
promotion
is
often
used
as
a
sourceofdrug information, less sobydoctorswhoqualifiedmore recentlyorwhopracticeinanacademicratherthanaprivatesetting.
2.2 Reported use of promotion as a source of information in adopting
newmedicines
HibberdandMeadows81found85%oftheUKdoctorstheyinterviewedsaidtheyusedMIMS(acommercialsource)tolearnaboutnewdrugs,butmostusednon
commercial sources to findout about efficacy. Similarly, theBritishdoctors inEaton andParishs study82 reported using sales representatives as a source ofinformationaboutnewmedicines,butrelyingonthemlesstoestablishwhetheramedicinewasusefulandshouldbeprescribed.
Ina studyofBritishGPs,byStricklandHodgeandJepson83, three commercialsourceswere rated in the top five sources used to alert respondents of newmedicines,but five professional sourceswere themost popular for providinginformation to evaluate medicines. GPs who worked alone cited salesrepresentativesasasourceofinformationforevaluatingdrugsmoreoftenthan
GPswhoworkedingrouppractices.
InPeayandPeays1994paper84aboutspecialistsandhighriskmedicines, theyfound that commercial sources of information played little or no role in theadoptionofdrugsinthedoctorsprimaryareaofexpertise,butsuggestthatthesesourcesmayprovideinformationaboutnewdrugsoutsidethisareaofexpertise.
ManningandDenson85lookedathowUSinternalmedicinespecialistsfirstlearntaboutcimetidine.TheirstudywasperformedsoonaftercimetidinewaslaunchedintheUSAin1977.Salesrepresentativeswereratedasthesixthorseventhmost
commonly mentioned source in each stage of learning about cimetidine.However advertisements declined in importance. Theywere the eighthmostcommonsourceforfirstknowledgeofthedrug,tenthforlearningprinciplesofusingit,andthirteenthforprovidingupdateinformation.
Parboosinghetal.86inCanadainterviewedspecialistsattendingannualscientificmeetingsandaskedthemtoidentifytwoorthreechangestheyhadmadeintheirclinicalpractice inthelasttwoyears,andthefactorsinvolvedinthesechanges.Eightyone of the 192 changes made were changes in prescribing. Salesrepresentativeswerenotedasinitialsourcesofinformationforlessthan20%of
thechanges,andveryinfrequentlynotedasprecipitatingthechanges.Likeotherstudies, this suggests that commercial informationmaybemore important in
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
38/102
Drug promotion:What we know, what we have yet to learn
28
alertingdoctorstodrugs,andlessimportantinlaterstagesofdecisionstoadoptnewmedicines.
Williamson87drawsonliteratureonriskassessmenttoexamineGPprescribingof
new
drugs.
He
concludes
that
the
level
of
risk
which
a
doctor
perceives
determineshowmuchexternalvalidationheorsherequiresinordertoprescribethedrug.Fromasmallsurvey,Kleinmanclaimstoshowthatdoctorspreferredinformation sourcesvarywith theperceived riskinessofmedicines.He arguesthatsalesrepresentativesare themost importantsource for lowriskdrugs,butarelessimportantforhigherriskdrugs.Bothstudiesaretoo limitedtoprovideconclusiveevidencebuttheirtheorydeservesmoretestingandtheirapproachofdrawing on other social science literature is one that other researchers shouldfollow.
A
US
survey
of
680
doctors88
found
that
9%
of
doctors
rarely
or
never
met
with
sales representatives. The study suggested that documented evidence of aproductsefficacyandapplicationswasthemajorfactor indoctorsdecisionstoswitch or increase the frequency of aparticularmedication. The report of thesurveyinPharmaceuticalExecutiveprovidesnodetailaboutthemethodsusedsothestudyishardtoevaluate.
Inoneofthefewqualitativestudiesonpromotion,Jonesetal.89 interviewed38consultants in Birmingham hospitals in the UK, and 56 GPs who regularlyreferredpatientstotheteachinghospital.Theyalsomonitoredtheprescribingof
specific
drugs
by
the
GPs,
and
in
the
hospital.
They
reported
that
sales
representatives were an important source of information for both GPs andspecialists.Jones et al. suggest that prescribers were not consistent in theirdefinition of prescribing a new drug. Theywere unsurewhether thismeantadding this drug to their regular prescribing repertoire, or whether it couldinvolveprescribingitonlyafewtimes.Inaddition,GPswereunsurewhethertoinclude new medicines that they were prescribingbecause the hospital hadstarted a patient on them. This suggests definitions need tobe very clear inquantitativestudiesinthisarea,sothatresultsareconsistent.
CONCLUSION:Selfreportsindicatethatpromotionisoftenusedasasourceofinformationaboutnewdrugs,especiallyforindicationsforwhichthedoctorhaslessexpertise.
2.3 Impactofpromotiononselfreportedattitudesandknowledge
Engle65carriedoutalargestudyontheeffectofasingleadvertiserpublicationondoctors attitudes and expected prescribing behaviour. Four firsteditionhardcoverbooks, about 100 pages longweremailed, one at a time, to 19,200
doctors.
These
were
on
topics
related
to
medicine
but
were
mostly
non
technical
and enjoyable to read.Thebooks each included 18pages of advertising for abroadspectrumantibiotic.Questionnairesweresenttorandomselectionsof1200
8/6/2019 Drug Promotion - What We Know
39/102
Review 2
29
ofthedoctors45daysbeforethefirstbookwassent,andaboutonemonthaftereach of the otherbookswas sent.Engle compared the attitudes and expectedprescribingofreaders(thosewhohadreadatleastonebook,thosewhohadreadat least twobooks)withnonreaders (baselineand thosewhohadnot received
the
books).
Readers
were
significantly
more
positive
toward
the
company
that
sentthebooksthannonreaders,butnotmorepositivetowardothercompanies.Readersweremorelikelytoexpecttheirfrequencyofprescribingthecompanysproduct to increase.Thiswas statistically significantand seemed toaffectonlythe sponsors product. Engle suggests that the campaign may have beensuccessfulbecausethebookswereprobablyreadcovertocover,unliketechnicaljournals. This large and ambitious study provides before and after studyevidence that a promotional campaign can significantly affect prescribersattitudes.Thestudydesigncouldhavebeenimprovedbyincludingarandomlyselectedcontrolgroup.
Sandberg et al.66 present evidence that students given textbooks bypharmaceutical sales representativesareunlikely to remember thenameof thecompanyoritsproducts.Theyinterviewed205fourthyearmedicalstudents,ofwhom 90% had received one ormore textbooks from companies.Most couldrememberthetitleofthebook,butonly25%couldrememberthecompanyoraproductassociatedwith thegift.Mostof thestudentswere interviewedduringtheirpersonalinterviewforadmissiontoaresidency.Thisseemsafarfromidealinterview situation. Studentsmayhavebeenvery nervous and thismay haveaffected their recall,and theyare likely tohavehadastrongdesire togive the
answer
that
they
thought
the
interviewer
wanted.
More
importantly,
this
study
didnotexploreoneof thekeypointsaboutgivinggifts tostudents. It is likelythattheeffectsofgiftsonstudentsincludeestablishinghabits,e.g.awillingnessto receive gifts and the development of positive attitudes towards drugcompanies.Becauseprescribingcannotbe influenced immediately, thememoryofthelinkbetweenagiftandaspecificproductorcompanyislessimportant.
Spingarn et al.67 found that house staffwhohad attended aGrandRound onLyme disease, presented by a drug company, were more likely than n