Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress 2023 EHA Congress 2023 ASCO Annual Meeting
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The ONWARDS insulin icodec trials

A round-up of the ONWARDS phase 3 clinical trials evaluating the novel weekly insulin icodec in people with diabetes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 7/2009

01-07-2009 | Original Article

Prescribers and Pharmaceutical Representatives: Why Are We Still Meeting?

Authors: Melissa A. Fischer, MD, MEd, Mary Ellen Keough, MPH, Joann L. Baril, BS, Laura Saccoccio, BS, Kathleen M. Mazor, EdD, Elissa Ladd, PhD, RN, FNP, Ann Von Worley, RN, BS, CCRP, Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 7/2009

Login to get access

ABSTRACT

CONTEXT

Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician–trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs).

OBJECTIVE

To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings.

RESULTS

Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Peay MY, Peay ER. The role of commercial sources in the adoption of a new drug. Soc Sci Med. 1988;26(12):1183–9.PubMedCrossRef
2.
Avorn J, Chen M, Hartley R. Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. Am J Med. 1982;73(1):4–8.PubMedCrossRef
3.
Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283(3):373–80.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Banks JW 3rd, Mainous AG 3rd. Attitudes of medical school faculty towards gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Acad Med. 1992;67(9):610–2.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Steinman M, Shlipak M, McPhee S. Of principles and pens: attitudes and practices of medicine housestaff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. Am J Med. 2001;110(7):551–7.PubMedCrossRef
6.
Brennan T, Rothman D, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;294(4):429–33.CrossRef
7.
Minnigan H, Chisholm CD. Conflict of interest in the physician interface with the biomedical industry. E Med Clin N Amer. 2006;4(3):671–85.CrossRef
8.
Campo K, De Staebel O, Gijsbrechts E, van Waterschoot W. Physician’s decision process for drug prescription and the impact of pharmaceutical marketing mix instruments. Health Mark Quar. 2005;2(4):73–107.
9.
Vainiomaki M, Helve O, Vuorenkoski L. A national survey on the effect of pharmaceutical promotion on medical students. Med Teach. 2004;6(7):630–4.CrossRef
10.
Adair RF, Holmgren LR. Do drug samples influence resident prescribing behavior? A randomized trial. Am J Med. 2005;118(8):881–4.PubMedCrossRef
11.
Crigger NJ. Pharmaceutical promotions and conflict of interest in nurse practitioner’s decision: making the undiscovered country. J Am Acad NP. 2005;17(6):207–12.CrossRef
12.
Nissen S, Wolski K. Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(24):2457–71.PubMedCrossRef
13.
Rosen C. The rosiglitazone story – lessons from an FDA advisory committee meeting. N Engl J Med. 2007;357(9):844–6.PubMedCrossRef
14.
Abramson J. Overdo$ed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine. New York: Harper Collins; 2004.
15.
Angell M. The Truth About the Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us and What To Do About It. New York: Random House, Inc.; 2004.
16.
Avorn J. Powerful medicines. The Benefits, Risks and Costs of Prescription Drugs. New York: Alfred a Knopf/Random House, Inc.; 2004.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Murphy S. Drug Sale Said Tied to Favors at Lahey. The Boston Globe. November 9, 2002. Page A1.
21.
Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chresn M, Landefeld CS. Narrative review. The promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents. Ann Int Med. 2006;145(4):284–93.PubMed
22.
Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med. 2007;356(17):1742–50.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Chimonas S, Brannan TA, Rothman DJ. Physicians and drug representatives: exploring the dynamics of the relationship. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(2):184–90.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, et al. Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1034–42.PubMedCrossRef
25.
McKinney WP, Schiedermayer DL, Luria N, et al. Attitudes of internal medicine faculty and residents toward professional interaction with pharmaceutical sales representatives. JAMA. 1990;264(13):1693–7.PubMedCrossRef
26.
Bellin M, Mccarthy S, Drevlow L, Pierach C. Medical student’ exposure to pharmaceutical industry marketing: a survey at one U.S. medical school. Acad Med. 2004;74(11):1041–5.CrossRef
27.
Brett AS, Burr W, Moloo J. Are gifts from pharmaceutical companies ethically problematic? A survey of physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2003;163(18):2213–8.PubMedCrossRef
28.
Zipkin D, Steinman M. Interactions between PRs and doctors in training. A thematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(8):777–86.PubMedCrossRef
29.
30.
31.
Kuehn B. Pharmaceutical industry funding for residencies sparks controversy. JAMA. 2005;293:1572–80.PubMedCrossRef
32.
33.
34.
American College of PhysiciansAmerican Society of Internal Medicine. Position Paper. Pharmacist scope of practice. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:79–85.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
Hagen B, Pijl-Zieber EM, Souveny K, Lacroix A. Let’s do lunch? The ethics of accepting gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Can Nurse. 2008;104(4):30–5.PubMed
41.
Stokamer CL. Pharmaceutical gift giving: analysis of an ethical dilemma. J Nurs Admin. 2003;33(1):48–51.CrossRef
42.
Prosser H, Walley T. Understanding why GPs see pharmaceutical representatives: a qualitative interview study. Br J Gen Pract. 2003;53(489):305–11.PubMed
43.
Wofford J, Ohl C. Teaching appropriate interactions with pharmaceutical company representatives: the impact of an innovative workshop on student attitudes. BMC Med Ed. 2005;5(1):5.CrossRef
44.
Cialdini R. Influence: Science and Practice 4th ed. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon; 2001.
45.
Agrawal S, Saluja I, Kaczorowski J. A prospective before-and-after trial of an educational intervention about pharmaceutical marketing. Acad Med. 2004;9(11):1046–50.CrossRef
46.
Anastasio G, Little JM Jr. Pharmaceutical marketing: implications for medical residency training. Pharmacother. 1996;16(1):103–7.
47.
Vinson DC, McCandless B, Hosokawa MC. Medical students’ attitudes toward pharmaceutical marketing: possibilities for change. Fam Med. 1993;25(1):31–3.PubMed
48.
Nelson CP, Bloom DA. Sales and science: changing patterns of pharmaceutical and medical device advertising in peer reviewed urology publications. J Urol. 2001;166(6):2317–20.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Greene J. Pharmaceutical marketing research and the prescribing physician. Ann Int Med. 2007;146:742–8.PubMed
50.
Monaghan MS, Galt KA, Turner PD, et al. Student understanding of the relationship between the health professions and the pharmaceutical industry. TLM. 2003;15(1):14–20.CrossRef
51.
Larson K, Levy J, Rome MG, Matte TD, Silver LD, Frieden TR. Public health detailing: a strategy to improve the delivery of clinical preventive services in New York City. Pub Health Rep. 2006;121(3):228–34.
52.
Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Principles of educational outreach (‘academic detailing’) to improve clinical decision making. JAMA. 1990;63(4):549–56.CrossRef
53.
Federation of State Medical Boards (FSMB) Research and Education Foundation Online Prescriber Education Network (OPEN) Web-based portal: Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Education Grant Program modules available at http://​www.​fsmb.​org/​re/​open/​modules.​html. Accessed April 7, 2009.
54.
55.
Cutrona SL, Woolhandler S, Lasser KE, Bor DH, McCormick D, Himmelstein DU. Characteristics of recipients of free prescription drug samples: a nationally representative analysis. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(2):284–9.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Spiller LD, Wymer WW Jr. Physicians’ perceptions and uses of commercial drug information sources: an examination of pharmaceutical marketing to physicians. Hlth Mark Quart. 2001;19(1):91–106.CrossRef
57.
58.
Fugh-Berman A, Ahari S. Following the script: how drug reps make friends and influence doctors. PLoS Med. 2007;4(4):e1500621–5.CrossRef
59.
Eckardt VF. Complimentary journeys to the World Congress of Gastroenterology – an inquiry of potential sponsors and beneficiaries. Zeitschr Gastro. 2000;38(1):7–11.CrossRef
60.
Krueger R, Casey M. Focus Groups 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2000.
61.
Prochaska JO, Velicer WF, Rossi JS, et al. Stages of change and decisional balance for 12 problem behaviors. Health Psychol. 1994;13:39–46.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Prescribers and Pharmaceutical Representatives: Why Are We Still Meeting?
Authors
Melissa A. Fischer, MD, MEd
Mary Ellen Keough, MPH
Joann L. Baril, BS
Laura Saccoccio, BS
Kathleen M. Mazor, EdD
Elissa Ladd, PhD, RN, FNP
Ann Von Worley, RN, BS, CCRP
Jerry H. Gurwitz, MD
Publication date
01-07-2009
Publisher
Springer-Verlag
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 7/2009
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-009-0989-6

Other articles of this Issue 7/2009

Journal of General Internal Medicine 7/2009 Go to the issue

Health Policy

High Quality Care and Ethical Pay-for-Performance: A Society of General Internal Medicine Policy Analysis

Update

Perioperative Medicine Update

Perspectives

Developing Physician-Leaders: A Call to Action

Original Article

Association Between Prior Experiences of Discrimination and Patients’ Attitudes Towards Health Care Providers Collecting Information About Race and Ethnicity

Populations at Risk

Rising Inability to Obtain Needed Health Care Among Homeless Persons in Birmingham, Alabama (1995–2005)

Reflections

Reflection

ACC 2024 Congress Coverage

Heart Failure Video

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch now

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discuss last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.

Semaglutide benefits people with type 2 diabetes and obesity-related heart failure

16-04-2024 Type 2 Diabetes News

Incentivised to exercise

11-04-2024 Lifestyle Modifications News

New intervention for STEMI-related cardiogenic shock

10-04-2024 Myocardial Infarction News

» View more highlights on the ACC 2024 congress hub page

Image Credits