Helen Prosser1, Tom Walley. 1. Department of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, The Infirmary, Liverpool.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Doctors are aware of the commercial bias in pharmaceutical representative information; nevertheless, such information is known to change doctors' prescribing, and augment irrational prescribing and prescribing costs. AIM: To explore GPs, reasons for receiving visits from pharmaceutical representatives. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. SETTING: One hundred and seven general practitioners (GPs) in practices from two health authorities in the North West of England. RESULTS: The main outcome measures of the study were: reasons for receiving/not receiving representative visits; advantages/disadvantages in receiving visits; and quality of representative-supplied information. Most GPs routinely see pharmaceutical representatives, because they bring new drug information speedily; they are convenient and accessible; and can be consulted with a saving of time and effort. Many GPs asserted they had the skills to critically appraise the evidence. Furthermore, the credibility and social characteristics of the representative were instrumental in shaping GPs' perceptions of representatives as legitimate information providers. GPs also received visits from representatives for reasons other than information acquisition. These reasons are congruent with personal selling techniques used in marketing communications. CONCLUSIONS: The study draws attention to the social and cultural contexts of GP-representative encounters and the way in which the acquisition of pharmacological information within the mercantile context of representative visits is legitimated. This highlights the need for doctors to critically appraise information supplied by representatives in relation to other information sources.
BACKGROUND: Doctors are aware of the commercial bias in pharmaceutical representative information; nevertheless, such information is known to change doctors' prescribing, and augment irrational prescribing and prescribing costs. AIM: To explore GPs, reasons for receiving visits from pharmaceutical representatives. DESIGN OF STUDY: Qualitative study with semi-structured interviews. SETTING: One hundred and seven general practitioners (GPs) in practices from two health authorities in the North West of England. RESULTS: The main outcome measures of the study were: reasons for receiving/not receiving representative visits; advantages/disadvantages in receiving visits; and quality of representative-supplied information. Most GPs routinely see pharmaceutical representatives, because they bring new drug information speedily; they are convenient and accessible; and can be consulted with a saving of time and effort. Many GPs asserted they had the skills to critically appraise the evidence. Furthermore, the credibility and social characteristics of the representative were instrumental in shaping GPs' perceptions of representatives as legitimate information providers. GPs also received visits from representatives for reasons other than information acquisition. These reasons are congruent with personal selling techniques used in marketing communications. CONCLUSIONS: The study draws attention to the social and cultural contexts of GP-representative encounters and the way in which the acquisition of pharmacological information within the mercantile context of representative visits is legitimated. This highlights the need for doctors to critically appraise information supplied by representatives in relation to other information sources.
Authors: Geoffrey K Spurling; Peter R Mansfield; Brett D Montgomery; Joel Lexchin; Jenny Doust; Noordin Othman; Agnes I Vitry Journal: PLoS Med Date: 2010-10-19 Impact factor: 11.069
Authors: Melissa A Fischer; Mary Ellen Keough; Joann L Baril; Laura Saccoccio; Kathleen M Mazor; Elissa Ladd; Ann Von Worley; Jerry H Gurwitz Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2009-05-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Mahmoud Abdullah Al-Areefi; Mohamed Azmi Hassali; Mohamed Izham b Mohamed Ibrahim Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2013-08-20 Impact factor: 2.655