ArticleBMC medical education2025
Assessing the effect of educational intervention on pharmaceutical promotion: a follow-up study among medical students from Pakistan.
Article in BMC medical education, 2025. 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
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe promotional strategies implemented by pharmaceutical organizations lead to abnormal prescribing practices that both diminish physician-patient confidence and drive-up healthcare expenses. The motives of the pharmaceutical companies are to appeal students' natural preferences. So, educating them represents an essential approach to combat these effects. Research provides few examples of educational programs while their long term sustained benefit has not been established over time. This research investigated how educational programs affect students in the short- and long-term after exposure to pharmaceutical promotional activities.
methodsThe study was conducted longitudinally across 7 schools within three provinces of Pakistan. Survey data collection took place from 856 medical students of the 3rd year class of term 2021-2022 and 2022-2023 for pre-post educational assessment. We performed two-year follow-up surveys which asked the same questions to these 2 cohorts to determine both the clinical rotations' impact and various promotional methods on their responses. We measured the opinions of 819 students who completed their last year and did not take part in the educational intervention to compare with those taking it. Analysis of each individual point in all comparison sets occurred through SPSS version 23.0.
resultsStudent perception along with business approach towards promotional strategies underwent significant modifications throughout the short-term period. The educational method lost its effectiveness at convincing students about avoiding financial support from pharmaceutical companies in the long-term period (median 2(1) to 2(0) p:0.049). Educated students displayed superior knowledge about how trivial gifts affect medication decisions over uneducated final year students (2 (0) to 3 (0) p < 0.001). In the group with high promotion exposure the educated students-maintained awareness about trivial gift influences (p < 0.001) but uneducated students believed they were unaffected by such promotions (p < 0.001).
conclusionAn education program could serve as a platform to build pharmaceutical promotion awareness alongside promoting skepticism levels and developing positive perceptions about pharmaceutical promotion methods. The educational intervention faces a high risk of becoming ineffective when students interact with the informal and hidden curriculum and exposure to promotional activities. The impact of role models, organizational culture, and institutional policies could be important aspects to be addressed for sustaining the effectiveness of such education programs.
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.