ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences
A study on the interactions of doctors with medical representatives of pharmaceutical companies in a Tertiary Care Teaching Hospital of South India.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Whether Present Era Demand Change in Pharmaceutical Promotional Ways to be More Eco- and Doctor-Friendly? An Observational Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2024Article
- Article
- The attitude and acceptability towards medical promotional tools and their influence on physicians' prescribing practices in Jordan and Iraq: a cross-sectional study.BMC health services research · 2022Article
- Marketing training strategies that pharmaceutical sales managers use to reduce unethical behavior.Journal of education and health promotion · 2022Article
- Interaction between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: A scoping review for developing a policy brief.Frontiers in public health · 2022Article
- Regulation of medicines advertisement in Zimbabwe: an assessment of the impact of pharmaceutical promotion on the prescribing behaviour of healthcare professionals.BMC health services research · 2021Article
- Influence of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribers in Jordan.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020Article
- A quantitative insight of the interactions of prescribers with pharmaceutical organization's representatives in clinical settings of Karachi.Integrated pharmacy research & practice · 2019Article
- Views and Perceptions of Medical Representatives and Physicians about the Role of Medical Representatives and Pharmaceutical Advertisement in Saudi Arabia - A Pilot Study.Journal of research in pharmacy practiceArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe promotional activities by medical representatives (MRs) of the pharmaceutical companies can impact the prescribing pattern of doctors. Hence, the interaction between doctors and the pharmaceutical industry is coming under increasing scrutiny.
objectiveThe primary objective was to assess the attitude of the doctors toward the interaction with the MRs of the pharmaceutical company. The secondary objective was to assess the awareness of the doctors about regulations governing their interaction with the pharmaceutical company. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a cross-sectional study. This study was carried out using a pretested questionnaire containing 10 questions between June and September 2014. The doctors working in the Dhanalakshmi Srinivasan Medical College and Hospital, Perambalur (Tamil Nadu) during the study period was included.
resultsA total of 100 pretested questionnaires were distributed, and 81 doctors responded (response rate 81%). 37% doctors responded that they interacted with MR once a week whereas 25.9% told that they interact with MRs twice a month. About 69.1% doctors think that MR exaggerate the benefits of medicines and downplays the risks and contraindications of medicine(P = 0.000). 61.7% doctors think that MR has an impact on their prescribing (P = 0.000). 63% doctors stated that they had received promotional tools such as stationery items, drug sample, textbooks or journal reprints from MR in last 12 months (P = 0.0012). Unfortunately, 70.4% doctors have not read the guidelines about interacting with the pharmaceutical industry or its representative (P = 0.000).
conclusionRather than forbidding any connection between doctors and industry, it is better to establish ethical guidelines. The Medical Council of India code is a step in the right direction, but the majority of doctors in this study have not read the guidelines about interacting with the pharmaceutical industry or its representative.
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.