Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38935777›Full record

ArticlePLOS global public health2024

Healthcare consumers' perceptions of incentive-linked prescribing: A scoping review.

Muhammad Naveed Noor, Haider Safdar Abbasi, Nina van Der Mark, Zahida Azizullah, Janice Linton, Afifah Rahman-Shepherd, Amna Rehana Siddiqui, Mishal Sameer Khan, Rumina Hasan, Sadia Shakoor

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in PLOS global public health, 2024. 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. 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

10 authors.

Muhammad Naveed NoorDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Institute for Global Public Health, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7847-6637
Haider Safdar AbbasiDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Nina van Der MarkDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.
Zahida AzizullahDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Janice LintonNeil John Maclean Health Sciences Library, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3210-9022
Afifah Rahman-ShepherdDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8845-9275
Amna Rehana SiddiquiJinnah Sindh Medical University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9819-7822
Mishal Sameer KhanDepartment of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8967-1761
Rumina HasanDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Sadia ShakoorDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1301-5239

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Incentive-linked prescribing (ILP) is considered a controversial practice universally. If incentivised, physicians may prioritise meeting pharmaceutical sales targets through prescriptions, rather than considering patients' health and wellbeing. Despite the potential harms of ILP to patients and important stakeholders in the healthcare system, healthcare consumers (HCCs) which include patients and the general public often have far less awareness about the practice of pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. We conducted a scoping review to explore what existing research says about HCCs' perceptions of the financial relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. To conduct this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley's five-stage framework: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting eligible studies, data charting, and collating, summarising, and reporting results. We also used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses' extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), as a guide to organise the information in this review. Quantitative and qualitative studies with patients and the general public, published in the English language were identified through searches of Scopus, Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and Google Scholar. Three themes emerged through the analysis of the 13 eligible studies: understanding of incentivisation, perceptions of hazards linked to ILP, and HCCs' suggestions to address it. We found documentation that HCCs exhibited a range of knowledge from good to insufficient about the pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. HCCs perceived several hazards linked to ILP such as a lack of trust in physicians and the healthcare system, the prescribing of unnecessary medications, and the negative effect on physicians' reputations in society. In addition to strong regulatory controls, it is critical that physicians self-regulate their behaviour, and publicly disclose if they have any financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Doing so can contribute to trust between patients and physicians, an important part of patient-focused care and a contributor to user confidence in the wider health system.

Identifiers

PMID38935777
PMCPMC11210849

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.