ArticleJournal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences2024
Whether Present Era Demand Change in Pharmaceutical Promotional Ways to be More Eco- and Doctor-Friendly? An Observational Study.
Article in Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim: Pharmaceutical promotion is the principal aspect of the healthcare system. In this study, we aimed to portray the opinion of doctors and medical representatives (MRs) on conventional pharmaceutical ways (usage of promotional or educational paper materials and physician drug samples) for pharmaceutical promotion. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, data were collected from doctors and MRs across India using self-administered Google forms. Data were analyzed, and results were drawn. Results: A total of 314 doctors and 272 MRs participated in the study. As per 95.5% of doctors, continuing medical education (CME)/books/online information is the most common and convenient method to update medical knowledge, whereas 67.9% of MRs also think the same. Only 5.5% of doctors prefer paper material provided by pharmaceutical companies to update their knowledge. Most doctors say paper materials provided by pharmaceutical companies contribute less than 25% to product information, rather CME, books, and online information contribute significantly. MRs also think similarly. 66.2% of MRs agree that more than 25% of paper material gets wasted due to non-distribution. 73.2% of doctors and 75.4% of MRs agree that the use of paper materials for product promotion is not cost-effective, even if it contributes to deforestation. Only 51% of doctors use more than 50% of medical samples in patient care and only half of doctors and MRs think expired medical samples are disposed of correctly. 56.1% of doctors and 71.4% of MRs think a significant amount of medical samples are wasted and are hazardous to the environment. Conclusions: Both doctors and MRs are of the opinion that the conventional method of paper promotion, that is, paper material and drug samples, is not cost-effective and also not eco-friendly. Hence, need to rethink - is there a need to change with time?
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.