Teaching appropriate interactions with pharmaceutical company representatives: The impact of an innovative workshop on student attitudes

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians. However, the skills for interacting with PCRs are not taught in the traditional medical school curriculum. We examined whether an innovative, mandatory workshop for third year medical students had immediate effects on knowledge and attitudes regarding interactions with PCRs. METHODS: Surveys issued before and after the workshop intervention solicited opinions (five point Likert scales) from third year students (n = 75) about the degree of bias in PCR information, the influence of PCRs on prescribing habits, the acceptability of specific gifts, and the educational value of PCR information for both practicing physicians and students. Two faculty members and one PCR led the workshop, which highlighted typical physician-PCR interactions, the use of samples and gifts, the validity and legal boundaries of PCR information, and associated ethical issues. Role plays with the PCR demonstrated appropriate and inappropriate strategies for interacting with PCRs. RESULTS: The majority of third year students (56%, 42/75) had experienced more than three personal conversations with a PCR about a drug product since starting medical school. Five percent (4/75) claimed no previous personal experience with PCRs. Most students (57.3%, 43/75) were not aware of available guidelines regarding PCR interactions. Twenty-eight percent of students (21/75) thought that none of the named activities/gifts (lunch access, free stethoscope, textbooks, educational CD-ROMS, sporting events) should be restricted, while 24.0% (8/75) thought that students should be restricted only from sporting events. The perceived educational value of PCR information to both practicing physicians and students increased after the workshop intervention from 17.7% to 43.2% (chi square, p = .0001), and 22.1% to 40.5% (p = .0007), respectively. Student perceptions of the degree of bias of PCR information decreased from 84.1% to 72.9% (p = .065), but the perceived degree of influence on prescribing increased (44.2% to 62.1% (p = .02)). CONCLUSIONS: Students have exposure to PCRs early in their medical training. A single workshop intervention may influence student attitudes toward interactions with PCRs. Students were more likely to acknowledge the educational value of PCR interactions and their impact on prescribing after the workshop intervention

Categorising the broad impacts of continuing professional development: a scoping review

Context: A number of systematic reviews have evaluated the impacts of continuing professional development (CPD). These reviews, due to their focused nature, may fail to capture the full range of impacts of CPD. This scoping review aims to explore the broader impacts of CPD with the intention of developing a categorisation of the types of impact of CPD. Methods: The authors searched MEDLINE, CINAHL and ERIC databases for studies published between 2007 and 2017 that looked at the impacts of formal CPD programmes for all health professionals. Studies were independently screened for eligibility; one reviewer charted data for all included studies, a sample of 10% was reviewed by a second reviewer. The charted data were analysed using both qualitative and quantitative content analysis. Results: The search returned 2750 manuscripts; 192 manuscripts describing 191 studies were included in this review. Most articles were from the USA (78 studies, 41%) and included medical doctors in the population (105 studies, 55%). Twelve categories of impact were generated through conventional content analysis: knowledge, practice change, skill, confidence, attitudes, career development, networking, user outcomes, intention to change, organisational change, personal change and scholarly accomplishments. Knowledge was most commonly measured (103 studies, 54%), whereas measurement of scholarly accomplishments was the least common (10 studies, 5%). Conclusions: Existing evidence takes a narrow view when assessing the impacts of CPD. Emphasis on measuring impacts as knowledge, behaviour, confidence, skills and attitudes may be due to the widely accepted four levels of evaluation from the Kirkpatrick Model or because the majority of studies used quantitative methods. The categories proposed in this review may be used to capture a broader view of the impacts of CPD programmes, contributing to the evidence base for their value and translating into CPD programmes that truly transform health professionals, their careers and their practice. © 2019 John Wiley & Sons Ltd and The Association for the Study of Medical Educatio