Dataset Information

Digital Medical Information Services Delivered by Pharmaceutical Companies via WeChat: Qualitative Analytical Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Social media has become one of the primary information sources for medical professionals and patients. Pharmaceutical companies are committed to using various social media platforms to provide stakeholders with digital medical information services (DMISs), which remain experimental and immature. In China, WeChat tops the list of popular social media platforms. To date, little is known about the service model of DMISs delivered by pharmaceutical companies via WeChat.

Objective

This study aims to explore the emerging service model of DMISs delivered by pharmaceutical companies via WeChat in China.

Methods

This study applied a qualitative research design combining case study and documentary analysis to explore the DMISs of 6 leading pharmaceutical companies in China. Materials were collected from their official WeChat platforms. Thematic analysis was conducted on the data.

Results

The DMISs of 6 pharmaceutical companies were investigated. Themes emerged regarding 2 essential information services delivered by pharmaceutical companies via WeChat: business operation services and DMISs (ie, public information services, professional services, science and education services, and e-commerce services). Business operation services mainly function to assist or facilitate the company's operations and development trends for general visitors. Public-oriented information services are realized through health science popularization, academic frontiers, product information, and road maps to hospitals and pharmacies. Internet hospital and pharmacy services are the main patient-oriented professional services. Medical staff-oriented science and education services commonly include continuing education, clinical assistance, academic research, and journal searching. Public-oriented e-commerce services include health products and health insurance.

Conclusions

Pharmaceutical companies in China use WeChat to provide stakeholders with diversified DMISs, which remain in the exploratory stage. The service model of DMISs requires more distinct innovations to provide personalized digital health and patient-centric services. Moreover, specific regulations on the DMISs of pharmaceutical companies need to be established to guard public health interests.

SUBMITTER: Ge Y

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10692881 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Digital Medical Information Services Delivered by Pharmaceutical Companies via WeChat: Qualitative Analytical Study.

Ge Ying Y Yao Dongning D Ung Carolina Oi Lam COL Xue Yan Y Li Meng M Lin Jiabao J Hu Hao H Lai Yunfeng Y

Journal of medical Internet research 20231117

<h4>Background</h4>Social media has become one of the primary information sources for medical professionals and patients. Pharmaceutical companies are committed to using various social media platforms to provide stakeholders with digital medical information services (DMISs), which remain experimental and immature. In China, WeChat tops the list of popular social media platforms. To date, little is known about the service model of DMISs delivered by pharmaceutical companies via WeChat.<h4>Objecti ...[more]

PMID: 37976079

Similar Datasets

Project description:Importance:Understanding the profitability of pharmaceutical companies is essential to formulating evidence-based policies to reduce drug costs while maintaining the industry's ability to innovate and provide essential medicines. Objective:To compare the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies with other large companies. Design, Setting, and Participants:This cross-sectional study compared the annual profits of 35 large pharmaceutical companies with 357 companies in the S&P 500 Index from 2000 to 2018 using information from annual financial reports. A statistically significant differential profit margin favoring pharmaceutical companies was evidence of greater profitability. Exposures:Large pharmaceutical vs nonpharmaceutical companies. Main Outcomes and Measures:The main outcomes were revenue and 3 measures of annual profit: gross profit (revenue minus the cost of goods sold); earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization (EBITDA; pretax profit from core business activities); and net income, also referred to as earnings (difference between all revenues and expenses). Profit measures are described as cumulative for all companies from 2000 to 2018 or annual profit as a fraction of revenue (margin). Results:From 2000 to 2018, 35 large pharmaceutical companies reported cumulative revenue of $11.5 trillion, gross profit of $8.6 trillion, EBITDA of $3.7 trillion, and net income of $1.9 trillion, while 357 S&P 500 companies reported cumulative revenue of $130.5 trillion, gross profit of $42.1 trillion, EBITDA of $22.8 trillion, and net income of $9.4 trillion. In bivariable regression models, the median annual profit margins of pharmaceutical companies were significantly greater than those of S&P 500 companies (gross profit margin: 76.5% vs 37.4%; difference, 39.1% [95% CI, 32.5%-45.7%]; P < .001; EBITDA margin: 29.4% vs 19%; difference, 10.4% [95% CI, 7.1%-13.7%]; P < .001; net income margin: 13.8% vs 7.7%; difference, 6.1% [95% CI, 2.5%-9.7%]; P < .001). The differences were smaller in regression models controlling for company size and year and when considering only companies reporting research and development expense (gross profit margin: difference, 30.5% [95% CI, 20.9%-40.1%]; P < .001; EBITDA margin: difference, 9.2% [95% CI, 5.2%-13.2%]; P < .001; net income margin: difference, 3.6% [95% CI, 0.011%-7.2%]; P = .05). Conclusions and Relevance:From 2000 to 2018, the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies was significantly greater than other large, public companies, but the difference was less pronounced when considering company size, year, or research and development expense. Data on the profitability of large pharmaceutical companies may be relevant to formulating evidence-based policies to make medicines more affordable.

Project description:BackgroundPharmaceutical companies spent $57.5 billion on pharmaceutical promotion in the United States in 2004. The industry claims that promotion provides scientific and educational information to physicians. While some evidence indicates that promotion may adversely influence prescribing, physicians hold a wide range of views about pharmaceutical promotion. The objective of this review is to examine the relationship between exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing.Methods and findingsWe searched for studies of physicians with prescribing rights who were exposed to information from pharmaceutical companies (promotional or otherwise). Exposures included pharmaceutical sales representative visits, journal advertisements, attendance at pharmaceutical sponsored meetings, mailed information, prescribing software, and participation in sponsored clinical trials. The outcomes measured were quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing. We searched Medline (1966 to February 2008), International Pharmaceutical Abstracts (1970 to February 2008), Embase (1997 to February 2008), Current Contents (2001 to 2008), and Central (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2007) using the search terms developed with an expert librarian. Additionally, we reviewed reference lists and contacted experts and pharmaceutical companies for information. Randomized and observational studies evaluating information from pharmaceutical companies and measures of physicians' prescribing were independently appraised for methodological quality by two authors. Studies were excluded where insufficient study information precluded appraisal. The full text of 255 articles was retrieved from electronic databases (7,185 studies) and other sources (138 studies). Articles were then excluded because they did not fulfil inclusion criteria (179) or quality appraisal criteria (18), leaving 58 included studies with 87 distinct analyses. Data were extracted independently by two authors and a narrative synthesis performed following the MOOSE guidelines. Of the set of studies examining prescribing quality outcomes, five found associations between exposure to pharmaceutical company information and lower quality prescribing, four did not detect an association, and one found associations with lower and higher quality prescribing. 38 included studies found associations between exposure and higher frequency of prescribing and 13 did not detect an association. Five included studies found evidence for association with higher costs, four found no association, and one found an association with lower costs. The narrative synthesis finding of variable results was supported by a meta-analysis of studies of prescribing frequency that found significant heterogeneity. The observational nature of most included studies is the main limitation of this review.ConclusionsWith rare exceptions, studies of exposure to information provided directly by pharmaceutical companies have found associations with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality or have not found significant associations. We did not find evidence of net improvements in prescribing, but the available literature does not exclude the possibility that prescribing may sometimes be improved. Still, we recommend that practitioners follow the precautionary principle and thus avoid exposure to information from pharmaceutical companies. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Dataset Information

Digital Medical Information Services Delivered by Pharmaceutical Companies via WeChat: Qualitative Analytical Study.

Background

Objective

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Digital Medical Information Services Delivered by Pharmaceutical Companies via WeChat: Qualitative Analytical Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets