Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26883210›Full record

SynthesisBMC health services research2016

Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review.

Tamara Lotfi, Rami Z Morsi, Mhd Hashem Rajabbik, Lina Alkhaled, Lara Kahale, Hala Nass, Hneine Brax, Racha Fadlallah, Elie A Akl

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Factors Influencing Prescribing Decisions of Physicians: A Review.Ethiopian journal of health sciences · 2018
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

9 authors.

Tamara LotfiDepartment of Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Rami Z MorsiDepartment of Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Mhd Hashem RajabbikDepartment of Clinical Research Institute, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Lina AlkhaledDepartment of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Lara KahaleFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Hala NassFaculty of Medicine, University of Damascus, Damascus, Syria.
Hneine BraxFaculty of Medicine, Université Saint Joseph, Beirut, Lebanon.
Racha FadlallahFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon.
Elie A AklFaculty of Health Sciences, American University of Beirut, Beirut, Lebanon. ea32@aub.edu.lb.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUnderstanding the perceptions and attitudes of physicians is important. This knowledge assists in the efforts to reduce the impact of their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry on clinical practice. It appears that most studies on such perceptions and attitudes have been conducted in high-income countries. The objective was to systematically review the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interactions with pharmaceutical companies.

methodsEligible studies addressed any type of interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. The outcomes of interest included knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of practicing physicians. The search strategy covered MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Two reviewers completed in duplicate and independently study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. The data synthesis consisted of a narrative summary of the findings stratified by knowledge, beliefs and attitudes.

resultsWe included ten reports from nine eligible studies, each of which had a number of methodological limitations. Four studies found that the top perceived benefits of this interaction were receiving information and rewards. In five out of eight studies assessing the perception regarding the impact of the interaction on the behavior of physician prescription, the majority of participants believed it to be minor. In one of these studies, participants perceived that impact to be lesser when asked about their own behavior. The attitudes of physicians towards information and rewards provided by pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) (assessed in 5 and 2 studies respectively) varied across studies. In the only study assessing their attitudes towards pharmaceutical-sponsored Continuing Medical Education, physicians considered local conferences to have higher impact. Their attitudes towards developing policies restricting physicians' interactions with PCRs were positive in two studies. In one study, the majority of participants did not mind the public knowing that physicians were receiving gifts and awards from drug companies.

conclusionsThis review identified few studies conducted in low and middle-income countries. While physicians generally perceived the impact of interactions on their behavior to be minor, their attitudes toward receiving information and rewards varied across studies.

Indexed as

Developing CountriesDrug IndustryHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInterprofessional RelationsAttitude of Health PersonnelEducation, Medical, ContinuingGeneral PractitionersHumansIncomeMalePharmacistsPhysiciansPrescriptionsReward

Identifiers

PMID26883210
PMCPMC4756506

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.