ArticleJournal of medical ethics2006
Interactions of doctors with the pharmaceutical industry.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2006. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2016Pooled it
- Validity of tools used for surveying physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical company: a systematic review.BMC research notes · 2015Pooled it
- Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review.PLoS medicine · 2010Pooled it
- Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Pharmaceutical marketing: the example of drug samples.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
- The Invisible Hand of Industry.Clinical obstetrics and gynecology · 2022Article
- GPs' perceptions of their relationship with the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.BJGP open · 2021Article
- Assessment of Pharmaceutical Company and Device Manufacturer Payments to Gastroenterologists and Their Participation in Clinical Practice Guideline Panels.JAMA network open · 2018Review
- Drug samples in family medicine teaching units: a cross-sectional descriptive study: Part 3: availability and use of drug samples in Quebec.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
- Plastic Surgeons' Perceptions of Financial Conflicts of Interest and the Sunshine Act.Plastic and reconstructive surgery. Global open · 2018Article
- Interaction and medical inducement between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians: a meta-synthesis.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2016Review
- The high costs of "free" drug samples.Clinical and translational gastroenterology · 2014Article
- Characterizing the relationship between free drug samples and prescription patterns for acne vulgaris and rosacea.JAMA dermatology · 2014Article
- [Medical students and drug marketing].Atencion primaria · 2014Article
- Addressing within-role conflicts of interest in surgery.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2013Article
- Attitude and practice of dental surgeons towards pharmaceutical companies' marketing gifts.Journal of medical ethics and history of medicine · 2013Article
- Knowledge levels of pharmaceutical sales representatives in pain therapy: a descriptive questionnaire-based study.European journal of clinical pharmacology · 2012Article
- Of money and trust in medical care redux.Mens sana monographs · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the opinions and practice patterns of obstetrician-gynaecologists on acceptance and use of free drug samples and other incentive items from pharmaceutical representatives.
methodsA questionnaire was mailed in March 2003 to 397 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who participate in the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network.
resultsThe response rate was 55%. Most respondents thought it proper to accept drug samples (92%), an informational lunch (77%), an anatomical model (75%) or a well-paid consultantship (53%) from pharmaceutical representatives. A third (33%) of the respondents thought that their own decision to prescribe a drug would probably be influenced by accepting drug samples. Respondents were more likely to think the average doctor's prescribing would be influenced by acceptance of the items than theirs would be (p<0.002). Respondents who distributed drug samples to patients indicated doing so because of patients' financial need (94%) and for their convenience (76%) and less so as a result of knowledge of the efficacy of the sample product (63%). A third (34%) of respondents agreed that interactions with industry should be more strictly regulated.
conclusionObstetrician-gynaecologists largely indicated that they would act in accordance with what they think is proper regarding accepting incentive items from pharmaceutical representatives. Although accepting free drug samples was considered to be appropriate more often than any other item, samples were most commonly judged to be influential on prescribing practices. The widely accepted practice of receiving and distributing free drug samples needs to be examined more carefully.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.