ArticleBJGP open2026
Pharmaceutical company promotional payments to English general practices: a longitudinal study.
Article in BJGP open, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGeneral practices have been a long-standing focus of pharmaceutical promotion, but their financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies remain understudied.
aimTo examine pharmaceutical company payments to general practices in England from 2015-2022, focusing on changing patterns of payments and what this reveals about companies' marketing. DESIGN &
settingDescriptive analysis of pharmaceutical company payments made to practices using data from industry's Disclosure UK database, covering 4430 recipient practices and 54 companies over an 8-year period.
methodAnnual Disclosure UK data from 2015-2022 were merged, identifying practices using a novel algorithm-based methodology, and categorising payments by type (for example, donations and grants, event sponsorship). Trends were analysed by company and payment type. The Gini coefficient measured payment concentration, and the persistence of relationships was assessed over time.
resultsPharmaceutical payments to general practices rose from £2.5 million in 2015 to £7.5 million in 2022. While 54 companies made payments, just one company, Chiesi - marketing commonly prescribed respiratory inhalers - accounted for more than 50% of the payment value from 2017 onwards. More than 40% of practices received payments from only one company, and 74% of company-practice relationships lasted just 1 study year. A few companies dominated, with a Gini coefficient of 0.86, driven by Chiesi's payments.
conclusionThe growing scale and concentration of payments and the dominance of one company raises concerns about bias in general practice. Future research should investigate the impact of payments on clinical decision making, but to do so, payment disclosures need enhanced transparency, particularly through including product-specific payment details.
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.