corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 14957

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Reed J.
Tell us about drug co links, say patients
6minutes.com 2009 Jan 19
http://web.archive.org/web/20101120030844/http://6minutes.com.au/articles/z1/view.asp?id=435212


Full text:

Most patients don’t realise their doctor may have received drug company hospitality or sponsorship, a survey of Australian general practices has shown.

Three out of four patients in Australia are unaware of any relationships their GP might have with pharmaceutical companies – but almost all patients believe their doctor should tell them.

The new MJA research (190:65-68) surveyed over 900 people in three Sydney general practices and found that patients were concerned about interactions between GPs and the pharmaceutical industry.

Almost half believed that their doctor was not swayed by potential bias, and over 80% believed that any competing interests such as cash incentives or sponsorship should be disclosed.

Many wanted to know information that could directly affect them, such as GP benefits for prescribing drugs or clinical trial involvement.

An admission of association would improve their confidence in doctors’ decisions, said most, preferring verbal over a written statement or signage.

The paper calls for greater transparency and scrutiny over doctor-pharmaceutical relationships.

Study author, oncologist Professor Martin Tattersall, told 6minutes that while the extra costs of disclosure time to consults needed to be costed, so did the interactions of doctors with pharmaceutical companies.

“We don’t know these figures in Australia but it may not be a trivial amount of time,” he said.

Professor Tattersall cited an example where doctors at a Cleveland clinic were required to disclose competing interests via a website.

“One could argue it could make it transparent, but there’s the question of who it is getting to. Something more direct such as verbal or written is likely to get the message across,” said Professor Tattersall to 6minutes.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








...to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.