Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42571643›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacology and therapeutics2026

Money, Meals, and Marketing in Medicine: A 13-Year Follow-Up Survey of Physicians.

Helen Mooney, Kirsten Austad, Eric G Campbell, Jerry Avorn, Zhigang Lu, Aaron S Kesselheim

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Helen MooneyProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Kirsten AustadDepartment of Family Medicine, Boston Medical Center & Boston University Chobanian and Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5237-2955
Eric G CampbellDivision of General Internal Medicine and Center for Bioethics and Humanities, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8022-2492
Jerry AvornProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0255-2346
Zhigang LuProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5528-2952
Aaron S KesselheimProgram On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8867-2666

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmaceutical company marketing to physicians is known to impact prescribing patterns. In 2011, we surveyed medical students and residents about physician/industry relationships. In 2024, we resurveyed the same participants to study changes in their behaviors over time and their current opinions of policies regulating interactions between physicians and industry. In both surveys, respondents were asked to report whether they had received gifts or financial support from industry or interacted with pharmaceutical representatives. We also asked which resources they used to learn about drugs. In 2024, we added questions to evaluate conflict of interest policies in patient care institutions. We performed chi-squared tests on reported behaviors in 2011 and 2024. For 2024 questions about policies governing interactions, chi-squared tests evaluated the association between responses and participants' reported receipt of gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Of the 294 respondents (33% response rate), 283 participants remained available for analysis after meeting our exclusion criteria. Participants were generally consistent in the magnitude and types of gifts they reported in 2011 and 2024. By contrast, there were important changes in their use of resources to learn about drugs. About one in four physicians did not know whether their institutions had policies governing interactions with the pharmaceutical industry, though respondents expressed support for meaningful limits on such relationships.

Indexed as

Drug IndustryMarketingPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'AdultConflict of InterestFemaleFollow-Up StudiesGift GivingHumansMaleSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID42571643
PMCPMC13453129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.