Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35105611›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2022

Community pharmacists' perception and exposure to drug promotion in Pakistan: a cross-sectional study.

Ali Hassan Gillani, Mingyue Zhao, Azzah Khadim Hussain, Kiran Munir, Shamaila Masood, Amna Saeed, Yu Fang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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.

Ali Hassan GillaniDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Safety and Policy Research, Shaanxi Centre for Health Reform and Development Research, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Mingyue ZhaoThe Department of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.
Azzah Khadim HussainDepartment of Pharmacy, University of Central Punjab, Lahore, Pakistan.
Kiran MunirDepartment of Pharmacy, The Islamia University of Bahawalpur Pakistan, Bahawalpur, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-7454-7741
Shamaila MasoodDepartment of Pharmacy, Bahauddin Zakariya University, Multan, Pakistan.
Amna SaeedDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Safety and Policy Research, The Global Health Institute, Shaanxi Centre for Health Reform and Development Research, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China.ORCID 0000-0002-0284-0260
Yu FangDepartment of Pharmacy Administration and Clinical Pharmacy, School of Pharmacy, Center for Drug Safety and Policy Research, Shaanxi Centre for Health Reform and Development Research, Xi'an Jiaotong University, Xi'an, Shaanxi, China yufang@mail.xjtu.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-8628-9030

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveDrug promotion is a factor that promotes the irrational use of drugs and sometimes negatively influences the prescribing/dispensing pattern. So there was a need to assess the views about accepting gifts and attitudes/influence towards drug promotion among community pharmacists in Punjab, Pakistan.

settingAdopting a preused questionnaire, we conducted a cross-sectional multiple-site survey study. We distributed questionnaires to pharmacists in the community pharmacies to investigate the exposure, scepticism and acceptance to drug promotion as well as their perception about the appropriateness of gifts and to check if they had been taught about dealing with medical representatives. Data were analysed in simple percentages, and the χ

resultsA total 86.9% (463/533) pharmacists completed the survey. One out of four pharmacists reported being taught about the ethics of drug promotion (26.8%) and about how to interpret drug promotional material (25.0%) and were significantly associated with higher age (age 31%-35 years, 81.9%; p<0.05). More than two-thirds of the respondents found it appropriate to accept stationery (73.4%) and textbooks (70.6%) as gifts, and only 17.5% felt it was appropriate to accept direct money. Less than half of the pharmacists (47.3%) perceived drug companies were useful for gaining knowledge about new drugs. Majority (76.2%) thought these drug promotions play a role in the irrational prescribing of antibiotics and 18.6% dispensed antibiotics due to these promotions.

conclusionThe majority of pharmacists participating in this study felt it was appropriate to receive small value gifts from pharmaceutical companies. Only a small proportion of the respondents was given ethical training and education about drug promotion. Improving the syllabus and updating the pharmacist's knowledge after graduation, as part of continued pharmacy education, will eventually improve the healthcare professionals' capability to act for the patients' welfare.

Indexed as

Community Pharmacy ServicesPharmacistsAttitude of Health PersonnelCross-Sectional StudiesHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansPakistanPerceptionSurveys and Questionnaireshealth policymedical ethicspublic health

Identifiers

PMID35105611
PMCPMC8808374

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.