ArticleCanadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien2018
Drug samples in family medicine teaching units: a cross-sectional descriptive study: Part 2: portrait of drug sample management in Quebec.
Article in Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pharmaceutical marketing: the example of drug samples.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2022Article
- Reflective practice.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
- Drug samples in family medicine teaching units: a cross-sectional descriptive study: Part 1: drug sample management policies and the relationship between the pharmaceutical industry and residents in Quebec.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2018Article
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
objectiveTo draw a portrait of drug sample management in academic primary health care settings and assess conformity to existing Canadian guidelines.
designDescriptive cross-sectional survey.
settingAll 33 family medicine teaching units (FMTUs) in Quebec that kept drug samples.
participantsHealth care professionals or FMTU staff who managed drug samples (ie,
main outcome measuresDrug sample managers completed a self-administered questionnaire between February and December 2013. Questionnaires inquired about sample selection, procurement, reception, storage, inventory, and disposal. Results were compared with the Canada's Research-Based Pharmaceutical Companies
resultsAll 33 FMTUs responded to the questionnaire. According to managers, no FMTUs had written selection criteria to guide sample choice. Almost one-third (30%) of FMTUs had uncontrolled access to drug sample cabinets. Even though pharmaceutical companies must distribute drug samples to authorized professionals only, these professionals were involved in the procurement and the reception of samples in 79% and 56% of FMTUs, respectively. Only 15% of FMTUs kept track of samples distributed, 82% checked expiration dates, and 85% ensured proper disposal as recommended.
conclusionThe management of drug samples in the FMTUs in Quebec is heterogeneous, with many FMTUs and pharmaceutical companies not following Canadian guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
30541820PMC6371884What 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.