Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33462098›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Perceptions of the provision of drug information, pharmaceutical detailing and engagement with non-personal promotion at a large physicians network: a mixed-methods study.

Ana Hincapie, Elizabeth Schlosser, Udim Damachi, Erica Neff, Leandro Llambi, Kent Groves, Neil J MacKinnon

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

7 authors.

Ana HincapieJames L Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA ana.hincapie@uc.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-6142-1744
Elizabeth SchlosserJames L Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Udim DamachiJames L Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.
Erica NeffAmbulatory Care Pharmacy, St. Elizabeth Physicians, Erlanger, Kentucky, USA.
Leandro LlambiAmbulatory Care Pharmacy, St. Elizabeth Physicians, Erlanger, Kentucky, USA.
Kent GrovesGlobal Health, Merkle Inc, Columbia, Maryland, USA.
Neil J MacKinnonJames L Winkle College of Pharmacy, University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, Ohio, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveNon-personal promotion (NPP) such as digital, print-based marketing, direct promotional visits and free drug samples are means of pharmaceutical marketing. This study described practices of drug information, pharmaceutical detailing and engagement with NPP at an integrated network of providers.

designThis was a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. A survey was followed by semistructured interviews. The questionnaire elicited preferred sources of drug information, management of drug information and perceptions on drug samples, coupons and pharmaceutical representative visits. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative).

settingFace-to-face or telephonic interviews were conducted at a large physicians network in Northern Kentucky.

participantsEighty-two medical assistants, primary care, specialty providers and other office staff who completed the survey and 16 interviewees.

resultsMost respondents were women (79.3%), office managers (26.8%) and individuals employed for 15 years or longer within the organisation (30.5%). Most participants (85.3%) indicated that pharmaceutical representative visits are the most common source of drug information. Paper-based material was the most frequent form in which information was received in physician offices (62.2%). Medical assistants were usually responsible for handling drug information (46.3%) on arrival in the office, compared with 15.3% of physicians. Drug representative detailing and lunches (62.2%) were the desired method of drug information communication followed by electronic mail or e-journals (11%). Interviewees generated three themes that described pharmaceutical representative visits and interactions with prescriber and non-prescriber personnel in the offices.

conclusionsWe found significant involvement of non-prescriber personnel in drug information management at primary and specialty care offices. Participants perceived that pharmaceutical representatives have an important role in keeping the offices informed and supplied with relevant drug information, coupons and samples. Findings highlight the importance of engaging prescriber and non-prescriber personnel to guarantee relevant information reaches providers.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryPharmaceutical PreparationsPhysiciansAdultAgedFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicKentuckyMarketingMiddle AgedPerceptionPractice Patterns, Physicians'Pharmaceutical Preparationsgeneral medicine (see internal medicine)health services administration & managementquality in health care

Identifiers

PMID33462098
PMCPMC7813310

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.