Perceptions of the provision of drug information, pharmaceutical detailing and engagement with non-personal promotion at a large physicians network: a mixed-methods study

ObjectiveNon-personal promotion (NPP) such as digital, print-based marketing, direct promotional visits and free drug samples are means of pharmaceutical marketing. This study described practices of drug information, pharmaceutical detailing and engagement with NPP at an integrated network of providers.DesignThis was a sequential explanatory mixed-methods study. A survey was followed by semistructured interviews. The questionnaire elicited preferred sources of drug information, management of drug information and perceptions on drug samples, coupons and pharmaceutical representative visits. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were analysed using descriptive statistics (quantitative) and content analysis (qualitative).SettingFace-to-face or telephonic interviews were conducted at a large physicians network in Northern Kentucky.ParticipantsEighty-two medical assistants, primary care, specialty providers and other office staff who completed the survey and 16 interviewees.ResultsMost respondents were women (79.3%), office managers (26.8%) and individuals employed for 15 years or longer within the organisation (30.5%). Most participants (85.3%) indicated that pharmaceutical representative visits are the most common source of drug information. Paper-based material was the most frequent form in which information was received in physician offices (62.2%). Medical assistants were usually responsible for handling drug information (46.3%) on arrival in the office, compared with 15.3% of physicians. Drug representative detailing and lunches (62.2%) were the desired method of drug information communication followed by electronic mail or e-journals (11%). Interviewees generated three themes that described pharmaceutical representative visits and interactions with prescriber and non-prescriber personnel in the offices.ConclusionsWe found significant involvement of non-prescriber personnel in drug information management at primary and specialty care offices. Participants perceived that pharmaceutical representatives have an important role in keeping the offices informed and supplied with relevant drug information, coupons and samples. Findings highlight the importance of engaging prescriber and non-prescriber personnel to guarantee relevant information reaches providers.

Structured Pharmaceutical Representative Interactions and Counterdetailing Sessions as Components of Medical Resident Education

Introduction: Educational activities should be developed to teach residents how to constructively interact with pharmaceutical representatives and how to critically assess the provided information. Methods: An educational study was implemented during the 2010-2011 academic year in an internal medicine residency program. The study included an initial educational session on physician–industry relations and then 4 interactive sessions with the pharmaceutical representatives, each followed by a counterdetailing session provided by a clinical pharmacist. Study surveys were conducted to evaluate resident attitudes concerning pharmaceutical representative presented information before and after the counterdetailing sessions. Results: A total of 27 residents (n = 27) participated in the study. The study results revealed that residents learned new relevant product information from the representatives ( P = .002) and strongly agreed that counterdetailing was beneficial ( P = .009). Residents further agreed that they would recommend counterdetailing presentations to peers, suggested minimal changes to session formatting, and recommended its continued inclusion in their curriculum. Conclusions: This study demonstrated benefits of a comprehensive program to teach residents how to constructively interact with the pharmaceutical representatives and critically assess the information provided by the representatives. Best practices for incorporating interaction and counterdetailing sessions into medical resident curriculum should be further studied.

From Printing Press to Pharmaceutical Representative: A Social History of Drug Advertising and Promotion

With only a few years left in the twentieth century, a multiplicity of controversies encompass drug advertising and promotion. Have marketing techniques regarding pharmaceutical drugs, proprietary medicines, alcohol, and tobacco really changed over time and disrupted the value structure of society? Past, present, and future affect people; not one aspect of time, but all aspects, bear upon the present. Drug advertising and promotion has maintained vitality and robustness through time by promoting the public's desire for a continuity of familiar and traditional health values. By using the nature of a perpetually changing environment, advertising has advanced drugs as symbols of health. Such symbolic activity has provided hope to people regarding their own power and control over pain and illness. Through time, drug advertising became institutionalized.

Pediatric Automotive Restraints, Pediatricians, and the Academy

Taken as a whole, the study pediatricians covered the range from recent graduates to those in practice over 30 years and included adequate representation of solo practitioners (30.8%) and members of groups (50.6%) and prepaid health plans (10.8%). Over one half of respondents estimated that their patients come from families earning between $10,000 and $15,000 per year. The vast majority (>90%) of pediatricians surveyed said that less than 25% of their patients requested information about pediatric automotive safety devices. Pediatricians who estimated they were teaching about this subject on every visit made up 2.6% of the entire sample (Table II). An additional 59.5% did so at least once each year per family. For 11.4% this aspect of health education was difference is consistent with the findings presented in Table IV, the respondents' ranked order of effective methods of distributing pediatric information. There were no significant differences between the rankings by the mail group and the interview group so the results are combined. In general, special letters from the Academy were felt to be most effective and visits by a pharmaceutical representative least effective as a source of pediatric information to Academy members. There were no differences between mail and interview groups with regard to the pamphlet follow-up questions. Overall, 94% found the pamphlets informative and 73% showed them to their patients; 89% would use them if provided free but only 36% would do so if there was a charge. The relative unwillingness to purchase the pamphlets correlates with the low percentage (2%) of pediatricians who ordered them in response to a mailing to all Academy members in June 1974.9