Interactions between Non-Physician Clinicians and Industry: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND: With increasing restrictions placed on physician–industry interactions, industry marketing may target other health professionals. Recent health policy developments confer even greater importance on the decision making of non-physician clinicians. The purpose of this systematic review is to examine the types and implications of non-physician clinician–industry interactions in clinical practice. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We searched MEDLINE and Web of Science from January 1, 1946, through June 24, 2013, according to PRISMA guidelines. Non-physician clinicians eligible for inclusion were: Registered Nurses, nurse prescribers, Physician Assistants, pharmacists, dieticians, and physical or occupational therapists; trainee samples were excluded. Fifteen studies met inclusion criteria. Data were synthesized qualitatively into eight outcome domains: nature and frequency of industry interactions; attitudes toward industry; perceived ethical acceptability of interactions; perceived marketing influence; perceived reliability of industry information; preparation for industry interactions; reactions to industry relations policy; and management of industry interactions. Non-physician clinicians reported interacting with the pharmaceutical and infant formula industries. Clinicians across disciplines met with pharmaceutical representatives regularly and relied on them for practice information. Clinicians frequently received industry “information,” attended sponsored “education,” and acted as distributors for similar materials targeted at patients. Clinicians generally regarded this as an ethical use of industry resources, and felt they could detect “promotion” while benefiting from industry “information.” Free samples were among the most approved and common ways that clinicians interacted with industry. Included studies were observational and of varying methodological rigor; thus, these findings may not be generalizable. This review is, however, the first to our knowledge to provide a descriptive analysis of this literature. CONCLUSIONS: Non-physician clinicians' generally positive attitudes toward industry interactions, despite their recognition of issues related to bias, suggest that industry interactions are normalized in clinical practice across non-physician disciplines. Industry relations policy should address all disciplines and be implemented consistently in order to mitigate conflicts of interest and address such interactions' potential to affect patient care. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summar

Factors associated with reporting nursing errors in Iran: a qualitative study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Reporting the professional errors for improving patient safety is considered essential not only in hospitals, but also in ambulatory care centers. Unfortunately, a great number of nurses, similar to most clinicians, do not report their errors. Therefore, the present study aimed to clarify the factors associated with reporting the nursing errors through the experiences of clinical nurses and nursing managers.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>A total of 115 nurses working in the hospitals and specialized clinics affiliated to Tehran and Shiraz Universities of Medical Sciences, Iran participated in this qualitative study. The study data were collected through a semi-structured group discussion conducted in 17 sessions and analyzed by inductive content analysis approach.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The main categories emerged in this study were: a) general approaches of the nurses towards errors, b) barriers in reporting the nursing errors, and c) motivators in error reporting.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Error reporting provides extremely valuable information for preventing future errors and improving the patient safety. Overall, regarding motivators and barriers in reporting the nursing errors, it is necessary to enact regulations in which the ways of reporting the error and its constituent elements, such as the notion of the error, are clearly identified.</p

Prescribers and Pharmaceutical Representatives: Why Are We Still Meeting?

CONTEXT: Research suggests that pharmaceutical marketing influences prescribing and may cause cognitive dissonance for prescribers. This work has primarily been with physicians and physician-trainees. Questions remain regarding why prescribers continue to meet with pharmaceutical representatives (PRs). OBJECTIVE: To describe the reasons that prescribers from various health professions continue to interact with PRs despite growing evidence of the influence of these interactions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Multi-disciplinary focus groups with 61 participants held in practice settings and at society meetings. RESULTS: Most prescribers participating in our focus groups believe that overall PR interactions are beneficial to patient care and practice health. They either trust the information from PRs or feel that they are equipped to evaluate it independently. Despite acknowledgement of study findings to the contrary, prescribers state that they are able to effectively manage PR interactions such that their own prescribing is not adversely impacted. Prescribers describe few specific strategies or policies for these interactions, and report that policies are not consistently implemented with all members of a clinic or institution. Some prescribers perceive an inherent contradiction between academic centers and national societies receiving money from pharmaceutical companies, and then recommending restriction at the level of the individual prescriber. Prescribers with different training backgrounds present a few novel reasons for these meetings. CONCLUSIONS: Despite evidence that PR detailing influences prescribing, providers from several health professions continue to believe that PR interactions improve patient care, and that they can adequately evaluate and filter information presented to them by PRs. Focus group comments suggest that cultural change is necessary to break the norms that exist in many settings. Applying policies consistently, considering non-physician members of the healthcare team, working with trainees, restructuring the current primary care model and offering convenient, individualized, non-biased educational options may aid success

Doing research in a cross-cultural context : methodological and ethical challenges

Conducting cross-cultural research is rife with methodological and ethical challenges. Researchers are challenged with many issues when carrying out their research with people in cross-cultural arenas. This chapter serves to set the scene of this book and points to several salient issues in doing research in cross-cultural settings. I aim firstly to provide discussion on the essence of cultural sensitivity in cross-cultural research. I will then discuss mailers relating to language issues and the use of bicultural researchers in cross-cultural research. I shall suggest strategies to gain access to research participants in cross-cultural research. Lastly, I will examine moral and ethical issues in cross-cultural research, and discuss the thorny subject of informed consent in cross-cultural research