ArticlePloS one2026
Pharmaceutical marketing and patient trust: How do doctor-targeted campaigns affect patients?
Article in PloS one, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundIn the context of pervasive pharmaceutical marketing directed at doctors, it is crucial to understand whether patients notice these activities and, if so, what impact this may have on trust in doctor-patient relationships.
methodsThe study was conducted through an online survey with 1,057 Polish participants. A quota sample, reflecting the Polish population in terms of specific socio-demographic characteristics, was chosen from an internet panel.
resultsThe average trust in physicians among Poles, on a 10-point scale, was 6.3 (SD = 2.1), while the average trust in pharmaceutical companies was lower, at 5.0 (SD = 2.3). The results indicate that 83.4% of respondents noticed signs of pharmaceutical marketing directed at doctors, with 5.5% experiencing all six types of marketing practices addressed in the study. Seeing a company logo in the doctor's office, encountering a pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR), and experiencing PSR-related longer waits were each associated with lower trust in physicians (t = -2.2, -2.3, -2.9; p = .028,.019,.004; d = -.136, - .148, - .188, respectively) and in pharmaceutical companies (t = -2.7, -3.1, -2.3; p = .008,.002,.021; d = -.166, - .202, - .151, respectively). Receiving a free drug sample was linked to slightly higher trust in physicians (t = 2.2, p = .028, d = .16) and showed no effect on trust in companies (p = .558). Most pairwise correlations among patient-encounter pharmaceutical marketing situations were weak, even when they reached statistical significance; the only strong association was between encountering a PSR in a medical facility and reporting PSR-related longer wait times (r = .69, p < .001).
conclusionPhysicians and pharmaceutical companies must acknowledge that their marketing relationships can influence patient trust and should carefully assess the consequences of their collaboration on the public's perception of medicine and public health.
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.