Literature DB >> 11667936

Effect of restricting contact between pharmaceutical company representatives and internal medicine residents on posttraining attitudes and behavior.

B B McCormick1, G Tomlinson, P Brill-Edwards, A S Detsky.   

Abstract

CONTEXT: The long-term effect of policies restricting contact between residents and pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) during internal medicine training is unknown. The McMaster University Department of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, implemented a policy restricting PCR contact with trainees in 1992, whereas the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, has no such policy.
OBJECTIVE: To determine if the presence of a restrictive policy and the frequency of contact with PCRs during internal medicine training predict attitudes and behavior several years after completion of training. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Retrospective analysis of the attitudes and behavior of 3 cohorts of physicians: University of Toronto trainees, prepolicy McMaster trainees, and postpolicy McMaster trainees. Surveys were mailed to 242 former University of Toronto and 57 former McMaster trainees who completed their internal medicine training between 1990 and 1996, with response rates of 163 (67%) and 42 (74%), respectively. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physician attitude, assessed by a question about the perceived helpfulness of PCR information, and behavior, assessed by whether physicians met with PCRs in the office and the frequency of contacts with PCRs (current contact score, consisting of conversations with PCRs, PCR-sponsored events attended, gifts, honoraria, and consulting fees received).
RESULTS: In both the unadjusted and multiple regression analyses, postpolicy McMaster trainees were less likely to find information from PCRs beneficial in guiding their practice compared with Toronto and prepolicy McMaster trainees, with unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.94) and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.13-1.22), respectively. All 3 groups were equally likely to report that they met with PCRs in their office in the past year (88%). Postpolicy McMaster trainees had a lower current contact score compared with Toronto (9.3 vs 10.9; P =.04) and prepolicy McMaster trainees (9.3 vs 10.8; P =.18). In multiple regression models, greater frequency of contact with PCRs during training was a predictor of increased perceived benefit of PCR information (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47) and was positively correlated with the current contact score (partial r = 0.49; P<.001). Number of PCR-sponsored rounds attended during training was not a consistent predictor of attitudes or behavior.
CONCLUSIONS: Policies restricting PCR access to internal medicine trainees and the amount of contact during residency appear to affect future attitudes and behavior of physicians.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11667936     DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.16.1994

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA        ISSN: 0098-7484            Impact factor:   56.272


  27 in total

1.  Better governance in academic health sciences centres: moving beyond the Olivieri/Apotex Affair in Toronto.

Authors:  L E Ferris; P A Singer; C D Naylor
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2004-02       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  Timing of buprenorphine adoption by privately funded substance abuse treatment programs: the role of institutional and resource-based interorganizational linkages.

Authors:  Sarah A Savage; Amanda J Abraham; Hannah K Knudsen; Tanja C Rothrauff; Paul M Roman
Journal:  J Subst Abuse Treat       Date:  2011-08-09

3.  Medical Schools' Industry Interaction Policies Not Associated With Trainees' Self-Reported Behavior as Residents: Results of a National Survey.

Authors:  James S Yeh; Kirsten E Austad; Jessica M Franklin; Susan Chimonas; Eric G Campbell; Jerry Avorn; Aaron S Kesselheim
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2015-12

4.  Teaching appropriate interactions with pharmaceutical company representatives: the impact of an innovative workshop on student attitudes.

Authors:  James L Wofford; Christopher A Ohl
Journal:  BMC Med Educ       Date:  2005-02-08       Impact factor: 2.463

5.  Resident and faculty perceptions of conflict of interest in medical education.

Authors:  Peter Y Watson; Akshay K Khandelwal; Joseph L Musial; John D Buckley
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-04       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 6.  Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training. A thematic review.

Authors:  Daniella A Zipkin; Michael A Steinman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Patent nonsense: evidence tells of an industry out of social control.

Authors:  Henry Mintzberg
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2006-08-15       Impact factor: 8.262

8.  Encouraging medical students to do research and write papers.

Authors:  Michael E Detsky; Allan S Detsky
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2007-06-05       Impact factor: 8.262

9.  Awareness of the Food and Drug Administration's Bad Ad Program and Education Regarding Pharmaceutical Advertising: A National Survey of Prescribers in Ambulatory Care Settings.

Authors:  Amie C O'Donoghue; Vanessa Boudewyns; Kathryn J Aikin; Emily Geisen; Kevin R Betts; Brian G Southwell
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2015-07-15

10.  White paper: statement on conflicts of interest.

Authors:  Julian Bion; Massimo Antonelli; LLuis Blanch; J Randall Curtis; Christiane Druml; Bin Du; Flavia R Machado; Charles Gomersall; Christiane Hartog; Mitchell Levy; John Myburgh; Gordon Rubenfeld; Charles Sprung
Journal:  Intensive Care Med       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 17.440

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.