Dataset Information

Japanese practicing physicians' relationships with pharmaceutical representatives: a national survey.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous surveys on the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical representatives (PRs) have been of limited quality. The purpose of our survey of practicing physicians in Japan was to assess the extent of their involvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities, physician characteristics that predict such involvement, attitudes toward relationships with PRs, correlations between the extent of involvement and attitudes, and differences in the extent of involvement according to self-reported prescribing behaviors.

Methods and findings

From January to March 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2621 practicing physicians in seven specialties: internal medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, psychiatry, and ophthalmology. The response rate was 54%. Most physicians met with PRs (98%), received drug samples (85%) and stationery (96%), and participated in industry-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) events at the workplace (80%) and outside the workplace (93%). Half accepted meals outside the workplace (49%) and financial subsidies to attend CME events (49%). Rules at the workplace banning both meetings with PRs and gifts predicted less involvement of physicians in promotional activities. Physicians valued information from PRs. They believed that they were unlikely to be influenced by promotional activities, but that their colleagues were more susceptible to such influence than themselves. They were divided about the appropriateness of low-value gifts. The extent of physician involvement in promotional activities was positively correlated with the attitudes that PRs are a valuable source of information and that gifts are appropriate. The extent of such involvement was higher among physicians who prefer to ask PRs for information when a new medication becomes available, physicians who are not satisfied with patient encounters ending only with advice, and physicians who prefer to prescribe brand-name medications.

Conclusions

Involvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities is widespread among practicing physicians in Japan. The extent of such involvement varies according to certain physician characteristics. As a group, they are at risk for influence by promotional activities.

SUBMITTER: Saito S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2921334 | biostudies-literature | 2010 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Japanese practicing physicians' relationships with pharmaceutical representatives: a national survey.

Saito Sayaka S Mukohara Kei K Bito Seiji S

PloS one 20100813 8

<h4>Background</h4>Previous surveys on the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical representatives (PRs) have been of limited quality. The purpose of our survey of practicing physicians in Japan was to assess the extent of their involvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities, physician characteristics that predict such involvement, attitudes toward relationships with PRs, correlations between the extent of involvement and attitudes, and differences in the extent of involvement a ...[more]

PMID: 20730093

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundStudies around the world have shown that interactions between pharmaceutical companies, pharmacists and physicians have a great influence on prescribing and drug dispensing practices. In middle-income countries, the nature and extent of these interactions have not been well researched. Our objectives were to qualitatively explore the nature of the interactions between pharmaceutical companies, physicians and pharmacists, their impact on drug prescription and dispensing practices in Lebanon.Methods and findingsWe used grounded theory approach as well as the known sponsor, purposive, and snowballing sampling strategies to identify interviewees from the three respective groups: physicians, pharmacists, and pharmaceutical representatives. We conducted semi-structured and analyzed transcripts thematically. This study encompassed 6 pharmaceutical representatives, 13 physicians and 13 pharmacists. The following themes emerged: purpose and driver for the interactions, nature of the interactions, incentives, impact on prescription practices, ethical considerations, and suggestions for managing the interactions. The main purposes for the interaction were educational, promotional, and monitoring prescription practices and dispensing, while the main drivers for these interactions were market potential and neighborhood socio-economic status. Physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives who engage in these interactions benefit from a variety of incentives, some of which were characterized as unethical. It appears that pharmaceutical companies give prominence to selected physicians within their communities. Although members of the three interviewed groups refer to some of the interactions as being problematic, they described a culture of acceptance of gift giving. We developed a framework that depicts the prevailing politico-cultural environment, the interactions between the three professional groups, and their impact on drug prescription. Underreporting is the main limitation of this study.ConclusionInteractions between physicians, pharmacists and pharmaceutical representatives are frequent. Although these interactions can be beneficial, they still have a substantial effect on drug prescription and dispensing practices. Hence, the need for new policies that regulate these interactions and penalize any misconduct.

Project description:IntroductionThe management of acute postoperative pain remains a significant challenge for physicians. Poorly controlled postoperative pain is associated with poorer overall outcomes.MethodsBetween April and May 2017, physicians from an online database who regularly prescribe intravenous (IV) medications for acute postoperative pain completed a 47-question survey on topics such as patient demographics, IV analgesia preferences, factors that influence prescribing decisions, and the challenges and unmet needs for the treatment of acute postoperative pain.ResultsOf 501 surveyed physicians, 55% practiced in community hospitals, 60% had been in practice for > 10 years, and 60% were surgeons. The three categories of IV pain medications most likely to be prescribed to patients with moderate-to-severe pain immediately after surgery were morphine, hydromorphone, or fentanyl (95.8% of respondents); COX-2 inhibitors or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (73.7%); and acetaminophen (60.5%). Past clinical experience (81.6%), surgery type (78.2%), and onset of analgesia (67.1%) were practice-related factors that most determined their medication choice. Key patient-related risk factors, such as avoidance of medication-related adverse events (AEs), each influenced prescription decisions in > 75.0% of physicians. Nausea and vomiting were among the most common challenges associated with postoperative pain management (76.2 and 60.3%, respectively), and avoidance of analgesic medication-related AEs was among the three most influential patient-related factors that determined prescribing decision (75%). Physicians reported the top unmet need for acute pain management in patients experiencing moderate-to-severe postoperative pain was more medications with fewer side effects (i.e., nausea, vomiting, and respiratory depression; 80.7%).ConclusionsOpioids remain an integral component of multimodal acute analgesic therapy for acute postoperative pain in hospitalized patients. The use of all IV analgesic medications is limited by concerns over AEs, particularly with opioids and in high-risk patients. There remains a key unmet need for effective analgesic medications that are associated with a lower risk of AEs.FundingTrevena, Inc.

Project description:BackgroundEmpathy is an outcome-relevant physician characteristic and thus a crucial component of high-quality communication in health care. However, the factors that promote and inhibit the development of empathy during medical education have not been extensively researched. Also, currently there is no explicit research on the perspective of practicing physicians on the subject. Therefore the aim of our study was to explore physicians' views of the positive and negative influences on the development of empathy during their medical education, as well as in their everyday work as physicians.MethodWe administered a written Qualitative Short Survey to 63 physicians in seven specialties. They were able to respond anonymously. Our open-ended question was: "What educational content in the course of your studies and/or your specialist training had a positive or negative effect on your empathy?" We analyzed the data using thematic content analysis following Mayring's approach.ResultsForty-two physicians took part in our survey. All together, they mentioned 68 specific factors (37 positive, 29 negative, 2 neutral) from which six themes emerged: 1. In general, medical education does not promote the development of empathy. 2. Recognizing the psycho-social dimensions of care fosters empathy. 3. Interactions with patients in medical practice promote empathy. 4. Physicians' active self-development through reflective practice helps the development of empathy. 5. Interactions with colleagues can both promote and inhibit empathy through their role modeling of empathic and non-empathic behavior. 6. Stress, time pressure, and adverse working conditions are detrimental to empathy development.ConclusionsOur results provide an overview of what might influence the development of clinical empathy, as well as hypothetical conclusions about how to promote it. Reflective practice seems to be lacking in current medical curricula and could be incorporated. Raising physicians' awareness of the psycho-social dimension of disease, and of the impact of peer influence and role modeling, seems promising in this regard, too. Stress and well-being seem to be closely related to physician empathy, and their modulation must take into account individual, social, and organizational factors. Further research should investigate whether or how these hypothetical conclusions can deepen our understanding of the determinants of physician empathy in order to help its promotion.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Patient-centered care for people with disability requires effective communication and compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). OBJECTIVE:To understand physicians' perspectives on communication experiences with people with disability. DESIGN:Twenty semi-structured individual interviews. Interview recordings were transcribed verbatim for analysis. SETTING:Massachusetts, October 2017-January 2018. PARTICIPANTS:Twenty physicians ranging from 8 to 51 years in practice in primary care or 4 other specialties. MEASUREMENTS:Commonly expressed themes around communication with people with disability. RESULTS:Concerns coalesced around 4 broad categories: communication experiences with people who are deaf or hard of hearing, communication with people who are blind or have vision impairment, communication with people who have intellectual disability, and recommendations for improving communication. Although participants in this study reported various efforts to communicate effectively with patients with hearing or vision loss or intellectual disability, many gaps appear to remain, as well as instances where physicians' preferences run counter to patients' wishes and the ADA. Examples include physicians' preferences for remote, online sign language interpreters despite patients desiring in-person interpreters and suggesting that patients arrange for their own interpreters. Few educational materials are available in braille, and electronic medical records may not allow documents to be printed in large font for persons with low vision. Communicating with patients with intellectual disability raised particular concerns, with participants often preferring to interact with caregivers and minimal efforts to involve patients. CONCLUSIONS:Effective communication is necessary for ensuring the quality of health care for people with disability, and it is legally required under the ADA. Our results suggest that important gaps may remain in ensuring effective communication, and some practicing physicians could benefit from formal training in effective methods for communicating with patients with disability.

Project description:BackgroundRationing is a controversial topic among US physicians. Understanding their attitudes and behaviors around rationing may be essential to a more open and sensible professional discourse on this important but controversial topic.ObjectiveTo describe rationing behavior and associated factors among US physicians.DesignSurvey mailed to US physicians in 2012 to evaluate self-reported rationing behavior and variables related to this behavior.SettingUS physicians across a full spectrum of practice settings.ParticipantsA total of 2541 respondents, representing 65.6 % of the original mailing list of 3872 US addresses.InterventionsThe study was a cross-sectional analysis of physician attitudes and self-reported behaviors, with neutral language representations of the behaviors as well as an embedded experiment to test the influence of the word "ration" on perceived responsibility.Main outcome measuresOverall percentage of respondents reporting rationing behavior in various contexts and assessment of attitudes toward rationing.Key resultsIn total, 1348 respondents (53.1 %) reported having personally refrained within the past 6 months from using specific clinical services that would have provided the best patient care, because of health system cost. Prescription drugs (n = 1073 [48.3 %]) and magnetic resonance imaging (n = 922 [44.5 %]) were most frequently rationed. Surgical and procedural specialists were less likely to report rationing behavior (adjusted odds ratio [OR] [95 % CI], 0.8 [0.9-0.9] and 0.5 [0.4-0.6], respectively) compared to primary care. Compared with small or solo practices, those in medical school settings reported less rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.4 [0.2-0.7]). Physicians who self-identified as very or somewhat liberal were significantly less likely to report rationing (adjusted OR [95 % CI], 0.7 [0.6-0.9]) than those self-reporting being very or somewhat conservative. A more positive opinion about rationing tended to align with greater odds of rationing.ConclusionsMore than one-half of respondents engaged in behavior consistent with rationing. Practicing physicians in specific subgroups were more likely to report rationing behavior.

Dataset Information

Japanese practicing physicians' relationships with pharmaceutical representatives: a national survey.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

Japanese practicing physicians' relationships with pharmaceutical representatives: a national survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets