Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25561865›Full record

ArticleSaudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society2014

Pharmacists' and physicians' perception and exposure to drug promotion: A Saudi study.

Noha M Zaki

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Saudi pharmaceutical journal : SPJ : the official publication of the Saudi Pharmaceutical Society, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Understanding antibiotic use for pig farming in Thailand: a qualitative study.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2021
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Influence of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribers in Jordan.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

1 author.

Noha M ZakiDepartment of Pharmaceutics and Pharmaceutical Technology, College of Pharmacy, Taif University, Taif, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionDrug promotion has to contribute to a more rational use of drugs. Concerns arise if promotion negatively influences prescribing/dispensing pattern. It is warranted to assess exposure and attitudes to, and acceptance of, drug promotion among pharmacists and physicians. METHODOLOGY: Adopting a randomized, multiple site and cross-sectional survey study, questionnaires (n = 250) were completed by physicians and pharmacists to investigate the exposure, acceptance or skepticism of Saudi physicians/pharmacists to drug promotion as well as their perception of the appropriateness of gifts and to check if they had any teaching/training about dealing with medical representatives (MRs) and Pharma promotion.

resultsSignificantly more pharmacists than physicians (32% vs. 23%; p < 0.05) reported being taught or educated about the ethics of drug promotion. The experience level was significantly associated with the teaching or training that the physicians and pharmacists received. Conference registration fees and drug samples were the most appropriate promotional gift for the physicians (67% and 66%, respectively; p < 0.01) whereas for pharmacists, the drug sample was considered the most suitable donation (79%). More pharmacists perceived drug companies as a useful way to gain knowledge about drugs than physicians (75% vs. 65%; p < 0.01). A higher proportion of both groups were accepting drug promotion than those skeptical about it.

conclusionThe majority of physicians or pharmacists participating in this study have received gifts from pharmaceutical companies. The drug samples and printed educational materials are the most widely accepted gifts. Recent graduates and those with few years of experience had higher teaching/training than experienced physicians and pharmacists in pharmaceutical promotion ethics and tactics to deal with MRs. On the other hand, experienced healthcare team were more approached and targeted by pharmaceutical companies and MRs. It is highly recommended to implement courses/discussion groups on the ethical interaction between healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies in the curriculum of both pharmacy and medicine. Updating the physicians and pharmacists after graduation, as part of continued medical/pharmacy education, will eventually improve the healthcare professionals' capability to act to the patients' welfare.

Indexed as

AcceptanceDrug promotionEducationMedical representativesPharmacistsPhysiciansSaudi ArabiaSkepticism

Identifiers

PMID25561865
PMCPMC4281594

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.