ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2017
Pharma Websites and "Professionals-Only" Information: The Implications for Patient Trust and Autonomy.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
backgroundAccess to information is critical to a patient's valid exercise of autonomy. One increasingly important source of medical information is the Internet. Individuals often turn to drug company ("pharma") websites to look for drug information.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to determine whether there is information on pharma websites that is embargoed: Is there information that is hidden from the patient unless she attests to being a health care provider? We discuss the implications of our findings for health care ethics.
methodsWe reviewed a convenience sample of 40 pharma websites for "professionals-only" areas and determined whether access to those areas was restricted, requiring attestation that the user is a health care professional in the United States.
resultsOf the 40 websites reviewed, 38 had information that was labeled for health care professionals-only. Of these, 24 required the user to certify their status as a health care provider before they were able to access this "hidden" information.
conclusionsMany pharma websites include information in a "professionals-only" section. Of these, the majority require attestation that the user is a health care professional before they can access the information. This leaves patients with two bad choices: (1) not accessing the information or (2) lying about being a health care professional. Both of these outcomes are unacceptable. In the first instance, the patient's access to information is limited, potentially impairing their health and their ability to make reasonable and well-informed decisions. In the second instance, they may be induced to lie in a medical setting. "Teaching" patients to lie may have adverse consequences for the provider-patient relationship.
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.