Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19424764›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2009

Prescribers and pharmaceutical representatives: why are we still meeting?

Melissa A Fischer, Mary Ellen Keough, Joann L Baril, Laura Saccoccio, Kathleen M Mazor, Elissa Ladd, Ann Von Worley, Jerry H Gurwitz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Pharmaceutical Sales Representatives in the United States and China: The Need for Professional Public Space.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2022
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. The social biography of antibiotic use in smallholder dairy farms in India.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Melissa A FischerUniversity of Massachusetts Medical School, 55 Lake Ave N, Worcester, MA 01655, USA. fischerm@ummhc.org
Mary Ellen Keough
Joann L Baril
Laura Saccoccio
Kathleen M Mazor
Elissa Ladd
Ann Von Worley
Jerry H Gurwitz

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

contextResearch 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).

objectiveTo 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

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

resultsMost 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.

conclusionsDespite 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.

Indexed as

Cognitive DissonanceConflict of InterestEthics, MedicalAdultAgedDrug IndustryFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMaleMarketingMiddle AgedPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Qualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID19424764
PMCPMC2695530

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.