Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27891235›Full record

ReviewJournal of pharmaceutical policy and practice2016

Interaction and medical inducement between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians: a meta-synthesis.

Shahrzad Salmasi, Long Chiau Ming, Tahir Mehmood Khan

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed
–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

8 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. 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
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Influence of pharmaceutical promotion on prescribers in Jordan.International journal of clinical pharmacy · 2020
    Article
  8. Drug promotion practices: A review.British journal of clinical pharmacology · 2018
    Review
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

3 authors.

Shahrzad SalmasiCollaboration for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE), Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia Canada.
Long Chiau MingUnit for Medication Outcomes Research and Education (UMORE), Pharmacy, School of Medicine, University of Tasmania, Hobart, Tasmania Australia.
Tahir Mehmood KhanSchool of Pharmacy, Monash University, Sunway City, Selangor Malaysia ; Department of Pharmacy, Abasyn University, Peshawar, Pakistan.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt has been proven that the interaction between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians can directly influence the latter's prescribing behaviour. This meta-synthesis aims to explore the available studies regarding the nature of the interaction that takes place between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians. It highlights the different aspects of that interaction by investigating the reasons why these meetings happen in the first place, their benefits and drawbacks and their impact on patients' health and, ultimately, the health of the public.

methodsA search for published articles was conducted in April 2015. Three databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, and ProQuest) were searched for articles published between January 2000 and April 2015. Authors worked autonomously and in pairs to select eligible articles. In this case, the meta-synthesis approach was used to develop a fuller understanding and to facilitate new knowledge by bringing together qualitative findings on physician-PR interaction. 'Meta-synthesis' is the process of amalgamation of a group of similar studies with the aim of developing an explanation for their findings (Walsh and Downe, J Advanc Nurs 50: 204-211, 2005). A thematic content analysis was conducted on the 15 included full text articles (qualitative and quantitative studies) whereby the original authors' understanding of key concepts in each study was identified and listed in a summary form in the data extraction sheet under "key findings" column. These findings were then juxtaposed to identify homogeneity and dissonance (Walsh and Downe, J Advanc Nurs 50: 204-211, 2005). Homogenous findings were then coded together on a different data extraction table to form a theme.

resultsA total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-synthesis;six from the United States, two from Libya, and one each from Turkey, Peru, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, Yemen, and Japan. Six main themes were derived from the included articles: 1-the frequency of pharmaceutical representatives' visits, 2-the perceived ethical acceptability of the interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians, 3-the attitudes held by physicians towards visits by pharmaceutical representatives, 4-their perception of the effect of such visits on prescription patterns, 5-reasons to accept or reject pharmaceutical representatives, and lastly, 6-guidelines.

conclusionsThe physicians referred to pharmaceutical representatives as efficient and convenient information resources and were willing to meet them and accept their gifts. It was also evident that most physicians believed that their prescribing would not be influenced by pharmaceutical representatives.

Indexed as

Health care qualityInducementMarketing ethicsMotivationPharmaceutical marketingPharmaceutical representativesPrescription behavior

Identifiers

PMID27891235
PMCPMC5114854

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.