Validity of tools used for surveying physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical company: a systematic review

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that physicians’ prescription behavior is negatively affected by the extent of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies. In order to develop and implement policies and interventions for better management of interactions, we need to understand physicians’ perspectives on this issue. Surveys addressing physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies need to use validated tools to ensure the validity of their findings. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of tools used in surveys of physicians about the extent and nature of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies, and about their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards such interactions; and to identify those tools that have been formally validated. METHODS: We developed a search strategy with the assistance of a medical librarian. We electronically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in September 2015. Teams of two reviewers conducted data selection and data abstraction. They identified eligible studies in one table and then abstracted the relevant data from the studies with validated tools in another table. Tables were piloted and standardized. RESULTS: We identified one validated questionnaire out of the 11 assessing the nature and extent of the interaction, and three validated questionnaires out of the 47 assessing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians toward the interaction. None of these validated questionnaires were used in more than one survey. CONCLUSION: The available supporting evidence of the issue of physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical company is of low quality. There is a need for research to develop and validate tools to survey physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical companies

Effectiveness of Mechanisms and Models of Coordination between Organizations, Agencies and Bodies Providing or Financing Health Services in Humanitarian Crises: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Effective coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises is required to ensure efficiency of services, avoid duplication, and improve equity. The objective of this review was to assess how, during and after humanitarian crises, different mechanisms and models of coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services compare in terms of access to health services and health outcomes. METHODS: We registered a protocol for this review in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews under number PROSPERO2014:CRD42014009267. Eligible studies included randomized and nonrandomized designs, process evaluations and qualitative methods. We electronically searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the WHO Global Health Library and websites of relevant organizations. We followed standard systematic review methodology for the selection, data abstraction, and risk of bias assessment. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. RESULTS: Of 14,309 identified citations from databases and organizations' websites, we identified four eligible studies. Two studies used mixed-methods, one used quantitative methods, and one used qualitative methods. The available evidence suggests that information coordination between bodies providing health services in humanitarian crises settings may be effective in improving health systems inputs. There is additional evidence suggesting that management/directive coordination such as the cluster model may improve health system inputs in addition to access to health services. None of the included studies assessed coordination through common representation and framework coordination. The evidence was judged to be of very low quality. CONCLUSION: This systematic review provides evidence of possible effectiveness of information coordination and management/directive coordination between organizations, agencies and bodies providing or financing health services in humanitarian crises. Our findings can inform the research agenda and highlight the need for improving conduct and reporting of research in this field

Association between physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviors of physicians. The objective of this study was to systematically review the association between physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices. Methods: We used the standard systematic review methodology. Observational and experimental study designs examining any type of targeted interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. The search strategy included a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to July 2016. Two reviewers selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate and independently. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty articles reporting on 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. All of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and examined different types of interactions, including detailing, industry-funded continuing medical education, and receiving free gifts. While all included studies assessed prescribing behaviors, four studies also assessed financial outcomes, one assessed physicians' knowledge, and one assessed their beliefs. None of the studies assessed clinical outcomes. Out of the 19 studies, 15 found a consistent association between interactions promoting a medication, and inappropriately increased prescribing rates, lower prescribing quality, and/or increased prescribing costs. The remaining four studies found both associations and lack of significant associations for the different types of exposures and drugs examined in the studies. A meta-analysis of six of these studies found a statistically significant association between exposure and physicians' prescribing behaviors (OR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.82-3.50). The quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate for risk of bias and inconsistency. Sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially change these results. A subgroup analysis did not find a difference by type of exposure. Conclusion: There is moderate quality evidence that physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies are associated with their prescribing patterns and quality. © 2017 Brax et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited

Extent of physician–pharmaceutical industry interactions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review

Background: Pharmaceutical companies spend large amounts of money promoting their products to physicians. There is evidence that physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies negatively affect their prescribing patterns. The objective of this study was to systematically review the extent of the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies in low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: Studies assessing the extent of any type of interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in July 2016. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to complete study selection, data abstraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively. Results: We included 11 eligible studies (7 quantitative and 4 qualitative). Quantitative studies found that pharmaceutical company representatives visited at least 90% of physicians. Printed material, stationery items and drug samples were the most frequently received gifts. Two of the studies assessing direct payment found percentages of 16 and 5%, respectively. Findings of qualitative studies were consistent with those of quantitative studies. In addition, they revealed an increasing tendency for pharmaceutical companies to provide expensive personal gifts, sponsor social events and offer cash as inducements to physicians based on their demands. They also identified building personal relationships, creating a sense of indebtedness and emotional blackmailing as commonly used techniques to influence physicians. Conclusion: A relatively high percentage of physicians in LMICs interact with pharmaceutical companies. Findings have implications for policy and practice, given the current extent of interaction is likely affecting the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians. © 2018 The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Public Health Association. All rights reserved

Risk of bias and funding source for each included study.

<p>Risk of bias and funding source for each included study.</p

Additional file 1: of Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review

Search strategy. (DOCX 52 kb

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

<div><p>Objective</p><p>To systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry.</p><p>Methods</p><p>We included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country.</p><p>Results</p><p>Of the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians’ disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>The awareness of participants was low for physicians’ receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.</p></div

Attitudes of patients and the general public towards surgeons’ interactions with the device industry.

<p>Attitudes of patients and the general public towards surgeons’ interactions with the device industry.</p