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: 19434

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

Arnold M
Docs value details, says PhRMA survey
Medical Marketing & Media 2011 Mar 29
http://www.mmm-online.com/docs-value-details-says-phrma-survey/article/199481/


Full text:

A PhRMA-sponsored survey found that nearly eight in 10 US physicians see drug companies and their sales reps as useful sources of information on prescription drugs.

The telephone survey of 500-plus American Medical Association members, conducted by KRC Research, “found that physicians consider a broad range of factors in making their prescribing decisions,” with just under 70% using info provided by company reps and over 80% saying they took into consideration the patient’s insurance factors, including formulary and prior authorization requirements.

More than 90% of respondents said their interactions with reps allow them to learn about new indications, potential side effects and emerging risks and benefits of medicines, and 84% said their interactions with reps let them provide feedback to companies about their experiences with specific medicines. Most found info from reps to be up to date and timely (94%), useful (92%) and reliable (84%).

Asked about company-sponsored peer education programs, almost 90% said such information was up to date, useful and reliable. Ninety-four percent said the programs strengthened their ability to care for patients.

PhRMA’s Kate Connor suggested that the results offer a “second opinion” on the value of industry-physician interaction.

“To suggest that physicians’ treatment decisions would be compromised by these interactions is an insult to their profession and, indeed, to the integrity of the FDA-regulated information that biopharmaceutical research companies provide,” Connor blogged, “data that reflect many years and billions of dollars worth of research. It is only appropriate that the companies that develop the data are the ones with the expertise to disseminate and discuss it.”

 

  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








Cases of wilful misrepresentation are a rarity in medical advertising. For every advertisement in which nonexistent doctors are called on to testify or deliberately irrelevant references are bunched up in [fine print], you will find a hundred or more whose greatest offenses are unquestioning enthusiasm and the skill to communicate it.

The best defence the physician can muster against this kind of advertising is a healthy skepticism and a willingness, not always apparent in the past, to do his homework. He must cultivate a flair for spotting the logical loophole, the invalid clinical trial, the unreliable or meaningless testimonial, the unneeded improvement and the unlikely claim. Above all, he must develop greater resistance to the lure of the fashionable and the new.
- Pierre R. Garai (advertising executive) 1963