ArticleBMJ open2017
A cross-sectional analysis of pharmaceutical industry-funded events for health professionals in Australia.
Article in BMJ open, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry and the practice, knowledge and beliefs of medical oncologists and clinical haematologists: a systematic review.British journal of cancer · 2022Pooled it
- Food industry's interactions with nutrition professionals in Australia: a survey.Public health nutrition · 2026Article
- Changes in Pregabalin Dispensing to Australians with Workers' Compensation Claims for Low Back Pain Following the Listing of Pregabalin on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme.Journal of occupational rehabilitation · 2026Article
- Practice-Level Clustering of Industry Payments to Clinicians.Health services research · 2025Article
- Quantifying Industry Spending on Promotional Events Using Open Payments Data.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- Psychology's medicalization of male baldness.Journal of health psychology · 2022Review
- Policing the promotion of prescription medicines - the new Medicines Australia Code of Conduct.Australian prescriber · 2021Article
- A comparison of educational events for physicians and nurses in Australia sponsored by opioid manufacturers.PloS one · 2021Article
- Promotion or education: a content analysis of industry-authored oral health educational materials targeted at acute care nurses.BMJ open · 2020Article
- How can the integrity of occupational and environmental health research be maintained in the presence of conflicting interests?Environmental health : a global access science source · 2019Article
- Observational
- Medicines Information and the Regulation of the Promotion of Pharmaceuticals.Science and engineering ethics · 2019Article
- Changes in the type and amount of spending disclosed by Australian pharmaceutical companies: an observational study.BMJ open · 2019Observational
- The murky world of disclosures.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo analyse patterns and characteristics of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of events for Australian health professionals and to understand the implications of recent changes in transparency provisions that no longer require reporting of payments for food and beverages.
designCross-sectional analysis. PARTICIPANTS AND
setting301 publicly available company transparency reports downloaded from the website of Medicines Australia, the pharmaceutical industry trade association, covering the period from October 2011 to September 2015.
resultsForty-two companies sponsored 116 845 events for health professionals, on average 608 per week with 30 attendees per event. Events typically included a broad range of health professionals: 82.0% included medical doctors, including specialists and primary care doctors, and 38.3% trainees. Oncology, surgery and endocrinology were the most frequent clinical areas of focus. Most events (64.2%) were held in a clinical setting. The median cost per event was $A263 (IQR $A153-1195) and over 90% included food and beverages.
conclusionsOver this 4-year period, industry-sponsored events were widespread and pharmaceutical companies maintained a high frequency of contact with health professionals. Most events were held in clinical settings, suggesting a pervasive commercial presence in everyday clinical practice. Food and beverages, known to be associated with changes to prescribing practice, were almost always provided. New Australian transparency provisions explicitly exclude meals from the reporting requirements; thus, a large proportion of potentially influential payments from pharmaceutical companies to health professionals will disappear from public view.
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.