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: 4775

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: Journal Article

Muijrers PE, Grol RP, Sijbrandij J, Janknegt R, Knottnerus JA.
Differences in prescribing between GPs: impact of the cooperation with pharmacists and impact of visits from pharmaceutical industry representatives.
Fam Pract 2005 Dec; 22:(6):624-30
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/lofref.fcgi?PrId=3051&uid=16055474&db=PubMed&url=http://fampra.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=16055474


Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Community pharmacists, pharmaceutical industry and differences in prescribing between GPs. OBJECTIVE: To explore the role of the pharmacists and pharmaceutical industry representatives. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey was undertaken of 1434 GPs in The Netherlands in 2001. Prescribing indicators based on general practice guidelines were used to assess the quality of prescribing. Three constructs, based on survey questions, were used as possible determinants for the quality of prescribing: cooperation with the pharmacist; quality of the Pharmacotherapeutic audit meeting (PTAM); and the GP’s attitude towards the pharmacist’s role. Data were collected about the frequency of visits by pharmaceutical industry representatives. Responses from 324 solo GPs were analysed using multiple linear regression. RESULTS: Response rate: 71%. For the 324 solo GPs the average score for the 20 prescribing indicators was 64% (SD 3.7). For the non-solo GPs this score was 65% (SD 3.8, P < 0.05). The differences between solo and group practices were: the number of visits from pharmaceutical industry representatives (5.7 versus 3.8 visits per month), full time GPs (93% versus 50%), the number of patients per GP (2151, SD 693 versus 1506, SD 742), and the presence of a GP trainer (21 versus 38%). Of the solo GPs, 4.6% are female, compared with 26% of the GPs in non-solo practices. The quality of prescribing in solo practices was not correlated with the GP’s attitude towards the pharmacist’s role, the way in which GPs cooperated with pharmacists or the quality of the PTAM. More frequent visits from pharmaceutical industry representatives was associated with a lower quality of prescribing. CONCLUSION: There was a negative correlation between quality of prescribing by solo GPs and frequency of visits by pharmaceutical industry representatives. In day-to-day practice, no measurable effects of the cooperation between solo GP and pharmacist on the quality of prescribing were observed.

Keywords:
Adult Commerce* Cross-Sectional Studies Drug Industry* Female Humans Male Middle Aged National Health Programs Netherlands Physician's Practice Patterns* Physicians, Family* Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

 

  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