ArticleMedical science educator2020
Active Learning to Promote Early and Effective Physician Interaction with Pharmaceutical Industry Marketing Practices.
Article in Medical science educator, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attitudes Towards Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research: A Survey of US Medical Students.Medical science educator · 2024Article
- Attitudes of ophthalmologists towards pharmaceutical promotion.La Tunisie medicaleArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundInteractions with pharmaceutical companies influence physicians' prescribing behavior. Less than half of US family medicine residency programs have educational curricula addressing their influence. However, medical students have extensive exposure to pharmaceutical industry marketing during their early years of training. We developed a successful and required active learning curriculum for medical students during their first-year of medical school. METHODOLOGY: A philosopher bioethicist lectured to first-year medical students on the ethical issues surrounding the interactions with pharmaceutical representatives and outlined the three principles approach to clinical ethics as presented in the American Board of Internal Medicine Physician Charter (2002). The lecture also described the eight physician types offered by Fugh-Berman et al. Students watched two fictitious physician-pharmaceutical representative interactions. To promote active learning, students were provided a 3 × 3 Bingo card with each physician type. The bioethicist facilitated a discussion addressing the interactions.
resultsTwo hundred twenty-nine first-year medical students participated in this required intervention. Fifty-two percent of first-year medical students had already interacted with pharmaceutical representatives. The session changed students' opinions of pharmaceutical representatives and their ability to identify strategies to mitigate their influence. Students articulated ethical issues involved in the interaction, techniques used by pharmaceutical representatives, and techniques that could be used by medical students or physicians. Ninety-one percent of students believed they could independently find reliable information about a drug.
conclusionThe session was effective to start the conversation regarding the ethical issues involved with the interaction between medical students/physicians and pharmaceutical representatives in the first year of medical school.
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.