Dataset Information

General practitioners and sales representatives: Why are we so ambivalent?

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Accepting gifts from pharmaceutical sales representatives (sales reps) or meeting them is correlated with excessive, more expensive and sometimes less rational prescribing. French general practitioners (GPs) tend to hold an unfavorable opinion of the pharmaceutical industry, yet the behavior they adopt with sales reps is generally favorable. Until now, no study has sought to explain the reasons for this discrepancy. This study explores GP experiences to better understand their ambivalent behavior.

Method

This qualitative descriptive study was based on semi-structured face-to-face interviews with French GPs in the south-east of France. An interpretative phenomenological approach was chosen to explore individual professional practices and to model the phenomenon through in-depth analysis of semi-structured interviews. A general inductive analysis was carried out. Data were analyzed by researchers from different disciplines (psychology, sociology and general practice).

Results

Ten GPs were interviewed for an average of 50 minutes. The analysis revealed three forces that combine to motivate GPs to keep meeting sales reps despite their unfavorable opinion of these visits: practical reasons such as the need for a substitute for continuing education; social and cultural reasons such as courtesy towards representatives; and psychological mechanisms such as cognitive dissonance and a hidden curriculum.

Discussion

The GP-representative relationship is complex and involves psychological mechanisms that the medical profession often fails to recognize. GPs use reps as a convenient tool for continuing education, particularly in the setting of a private practice where GPs feel pressed for time. Cognitive dissonance is a well-supported theory in social psychology that explains how a person maintains a behavior while having an unfavorable opinion of it. Since GP meetings with sales reps start during their internship, they could also be considered as part of a hidden curriculum. The strength of this work is to combine medical, social psychological and sociological perspectives with the original interpretative phenomenological approach. When the veil is lifted on individual ambivalence, the questions raised are more social and political than individual.

SUBMITTER: Barbaroux A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8786166 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Prescription drug spending is growing faster than any other sector of healthcare. However, very little is known about patterns of prescribing and cost of prescribing between general practices. In this study, we examined variation in prescription rates and prescription costs through time for 55 GP surgeries in Northern Ireland Western Health and Social Care Trust. Temporal changes in variability of prescribing rates and costs were assessed using the Mann-Kendall test. Outlier practices contributing to between practice variation in prescribing rates were identified with the interquartile range outlier detection method. The relationship between rates and cost of prescribing was explored with Spearman's statistics. The differences in variability and mean number of prescribing rates associated with the practice setting and socioeconomic deprivation were tested using t-test and F-test respectively. The largest between-practice difference in prescribing rates was observed for Apr-Jun 2015, with the number of prescriptions ranging from 3.34 to 8.36 per patient. We showed that practices with outlier prescribing rates greatly contributed to between-practice variability. The largest difference in prescribing costs was reported for Apr-Jun 2014, with the prescription cost per patient ranging from £26.4 to £64.5. In addition, the temporal changes in variability of prescribing rates and costs were shown to undergo an upward trend. We demonstrated that practice setting and socio-economic deprivation accounted for some of the between-practice variation in prescribing. Rural practices had higher between practice variability than urban practices at all time points. Practices situated in more deprived areas had higher prescribing rates but lower variability than those located in less deprived areas. Further analysis is recommended to assess if variation in prescribing can be explained by demographic characteristics of patient population and practice features. Identification of other factors contributing to prescribing variability can help us better address potential inappropriateness of prescribing.

Project description:IntroductionThe information provided by pharmaceutical sales representatives has been shown to influence prescribing. To enable safe prescribing, medicines information must include harm as well as benefits. Regulation supports this aim, but relative effectiveness of different approaches is not known. The United States (US) and France directly regulate drug promotion; Canada relies on industry self-regulation. France has the strictest information standards.MethodsThis is a prospective cohort study in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse. We recruited random samples of primary care physicians from May 2009 to June 2010 to report on consecutive sales visits. The primary outcome measure was "minimally adequate safety information" (mention of at least one indication, serious adverse event, common adverse event, and contraindication, and no unqualified safety claims or unapproved indications).ResultsTwo hundred and fifty-five physicians reported on 1,692 drug-specific promotions. "Minimally adequate safety information" did not differ: 1.7 % of promotions; range 0.9-3.0 % per site. Sales representatives provided some vs. no information on harm more often in Toulouse than in Montreal and Vancouver: 61 % vs. 34 %, OR = 4.0; 95 % CI 2.8-5.6, or Sacramento (39 %), OR = 2.4; 95 % CI 1.7-3.6. Serious adverse events were rarely mentioned (5-6 % of promotions in all four sites), although 45 % of promotions were for drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) "black box" warnings of serious risks. Nevertheless, physicians judged the quality of scientific information to be good or excellent in 901 (54 %) of promotions, and indicated readiness to prescribe 64 % of the time.Discussion"Minimally adequate safety information" did not differ in the US and Canadian sites, despite regulatory differences. In Toulouse, consistent with stricter standards, more harm information was provided. However, in all sites, physicians were rarely informed about serious adverse events, raising questions about whether current approaches to regulation of sales representatives adequately protect patient health.

Project description:ObjectiveGiven recent concerns regarding general practitioner (GP) workforce capacity, we aimed to describe GPs' career intentions, especially those which might impact on GP workforce availability over the next 5 years.DesignCensus survey, conducted between April and June 2016 using postal and online responses , of all GPs on the National Health Service performers list and eligible to practise in primary care. Two reminders were used as necessary.SettingSouth West England (population 3.5 ?million), a region with low overall socioeconomic deprivation.ParticipantsEligible GPs were 2248 out of 3370 (67 % response rate).Main outcome measuresReported likelihood of permanently leaving or reducing hours spent in direct patient care or of taking a career break within the next 5 years and present morale weighted for non-response.ResultsResponders included 217 7 GPs engaged in patient care. Of these, 863 (37% weighted, 95% ?CI 35 % to 39 %) reported a high likelihood of quitting direct patient care within the next 5 years. Overall, 1535 (70% weighted, 95% ?CI 68 % to 72 %) respondents reported a career intention that would negatively impact GP workforce capacity over the next 5 years, through permanently leaving or reducing hours spent in direct patient care, or through taking a career break. GP age was an important predictor of career intentions; sharp increases in the proportion of GPs intending to quit patient care were evident from 52 years. Only 305 (14% weighted, 95% ?CI 13 % to 16 %) reported high morale, while 1195 ( 54 % weighted, 95% ?CI 52 % to 56 %) reported low morale. Low morale was particularly common among GP partners. Current morale strongly predicted GPs' career intentions; those with very low morale were particularly likely to report intentions to quit patient care or to take a career break.ConclusionsA substantial majority of GPs in South West England report low morale. Many are considering career intentions which, if implemented, would adversely impact GP workforce capacity within a short time period.Study registrationNIHR HS&DR - 14/196/02, UKCRN ID 20700.

Project description:BACKGROUND: It has now for many years been recognised that patient evaluations should be undertaken as an integral part of the complex task of improving the quality of general practice care. Yet little is known about the general practitioners' (GPs') benefit from patient evaluations. Aim 1 was to study the impact on the GPs of a patient evaluation and subsequent feedback of results presented at a plenary session comprising a study guide for the results and group discussions. Aim 2 was to study possible facilitators and barriers to the implementations of the results raised by the patient evaluation process. METHODS: A patient evaluation survey of 597 voluntarily participating GPs was performed by means of the EUROPEP questionnaire. Evaluation results were fed back to the GPs as written reports at a single feedback meeting with group discussions of the results. Between 3 and 17 months after the feedback, the 597 GPs received a questionnaire with items addressing their experience with and perceived benefit from the evaluations. RESULTS: 79.4% of the GPs responded. 33% of the responding GPs reported that the patient evaluation had raised their attention to the patient perspective on the quality of general practice care. Job satisfaction had improved among 26%, and 21% had developed a more positive attitude to patient evaluations. 77% of the GPs reported having learnt from the evaluation. 54% had made changes to improve practice, 82% would recommend a patient evaluation to a colleague and 75% would do another patient evaluation if invited. 14% of the GPs had become less positive towards patient evaluations, and job satisfaction had decreased among 3%. CONCLUSIONS: We found a significant impact on the GPs regarding satisfaction with the process and attitude towards patient evaluations, GPs' attention to the patients' perspective on care quality and their job satisfaction. Being benchmarked against the average seemed to raise barriers to the concept of patient evaluations and difficulties interpreting the results may have formed a barrier to their implementation which was partly overcome by adding qualitative data to the quantitative results. The GPs' significant willingness to share and discuss the results with others may have served as a facilitator.