Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34100259›Full record

ArticleMonash bioethics review2022

Transparency or restricting gifts? Polish medical students' opinions about regulating relationships with pharmaceutical sales representatives.

Marta Makowska, Emilia Kaczmarek, Marcin Rodzinka

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Monash bioethics review, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Perception of Medical Humanities among Polish Medical Students: Qualitative Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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

3 authors.

Marta MakowskaInstitute of Sociological Sciences and Pedagogy, Warsaw University of Life Sciences, Nowoursynowska 166 St., 02-787, Warsaw, Poland.
Emilia KaczmarekFaculty of Philosophy, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 3, 00-927, Warsaw, Poland. emilia.kaczmarek@uw.edu.pl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2684-7723
Marcin RodzinkaJagiellonian University Medical College, Kraków, Poland.

Funding

Narodowe Centrum Nauki 2018/02/X/HS6/02645
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) often create conflicts of interest, not least because of the various benefits received by physicians. Many countries attempt to control pharmaceutical industry marketing strategies through legal regulation, and this is true in Poland where efforts are underway to eliminate any practices that might be considered corrupt in medicine. The present research considered Polish medical students' opinions about domestic laws restricting doctors' acceptance of expensive gifts from the industry, the idea of compulsory transparency, and the possibility of introducing a Polish Sunshine Law. A qualitative, focus group-based, interview method was used. Data were gathered from nine focus groups involving 92 medical students from three universities located in major Polish cities. The article presents a classification of opposing student views with regard to the consequences of introducing different legal solutions; this should be useful for policy makers deliberating on how to optimally regulate pharmaceutical marketing. The study's results are discussed in the context of the public bioethical debate in Poland.

Indexed as

Students, MedicalConflict of InterestDrug IndustryGift GivingHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsPolandPharmaceutical PreparationsBioethicsLegal regulationsMedical studentsPharmaceutical marketingQualitative researchTransparency

Identifiers

PMID34100259
PMCPMC8183325

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.