Purpose -The purpose of this study is to analyze newspaper coverage of ethical issues in the pharmaceutical industry. Design/methodology/approach -The top five US newspapers were audited over two years and yielded 376 articles, which appeared as front-page stories or editorials. First, headlines were analyzed and categorized as positive, negative, or neutral toward the industry. Next, the full-text of each article was analyzed and ethical issues in each article were categorized. Then, articles were evaluated to determine whether the opposing point of view was included. Finally, comparisons were made between the identified issues and the issues cited by PhRMA, the pharmaceutical industry's trade association. Findings -Analysis of the ethical issues revealed different results for the two years. In 2004, the most common issues covered were drug pricing, data disclosure and importation/reimportation. In 2005, drug safety was the number one issue, due to Vioxx w with drug pricing a distant second. Headlines were negative 57.1 percent in 2004 and 43.9 percent in 2005. Full-text articles were negative 69.5 percent in 2004 and 60.1 percent in 2005. The opposing point of view was included 77.7 percent in 2004 and increased to 82.7 percent in 2005. Ethical issues cited by PhRMA, (e.g. drug pricing), received heavy coverage but several identified issues were not on PhRMA's list, notably drug safety. Practical implications -Pharmaceutical companies need to take action to address the negative impression about them. Originality/value -This research establishes a practical methodology to evaluate newspaper coverage of ethical issues involving the pharmaceutical industry.

No abstract

No abstract

Purpose -The purpose of this paper is to try to understand better whether performance appraisal (PA) helps performance evaluators (PEs) to manage more effectively and meet employees' expectations in US-based corporations. Design/methodology/approach -A 54-item research instrument was developed and implemented using structured interviews with 54 PEs, who worked at five US-based corporations (Aetna Insurance, IBM, Johnson & Johnson, Valspar, Wyeth Pharmaceuticals). Responses were statistically analyzed with descriptive statistics and decision trees. Findings -Time dedicated to implementing PA was the most important factor leading to ethical issues. PEs with the highest educational levels and most experience spent the least amount of time (1.86 vs 3.19 hours) implementing PA. Most PEs (79.6 percent) solicited feedback about employees' performance from employees' peers but 20 percent did not. Additionally, not a single PE had PA as a specific objective, making it difficult to sequester time necessary for PA. Older PEs felt PA helped them manage more effectively and PEs who were Black or White and from Marketing/Sales were most favorable about meeting employees' PA expectations. There were no remarkable differences among PA systems at the five corporations, e.g. 360-degree training.Research limitations/implications -Structured interviews required delicate interaction due to sensitivity about the US economy and resulting layoffs within interviewees' corporations. Practical implications -PEs, particularly older managers with higher educational levels, should have a PA objective and be held accountable to it to ensure that they dedicate time necessary to complete PA in the way the PA system intends. Originality/value -The paper provides insight about PA within the US corporate setting and will be highly interesting to those in that field.

Purpose This paper aims to explore gender differences in payments made to physicians by the pharmaceutical and medical device industries via the performance of a systematic review of articles based on the Open Payments Database (OPD). Design/methodology/approach Three databases (Scopus, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched for articles published from September 30, 2014 to May 10, 2019, using two search terms: “Sunshine Act” and “Open Payments.” The systematic review is reported according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Findings The search identified 359 abstracts. Thirty-nine articles were selected for full review, and 17 of these met the inclusion criteria. Although the articles considered are based on the same database, they adopt diverse approaches and analyses are conducted in different ways. A substantial proportion of the studies show total payments from the two industries to be higher for male physicians than for female physicians. However, a few exceptions exist, higher female mean or median values occurring for payments involving research, ownership, honoraria, grants, royalties/licenses and travel/lodgings. Also, in the case of obstetric–gynecological specializations, a higher proportion of women than men are shown to cooperate with the industries. Originality/value There is gender inequality in terms of industries’ funding for doctors. While analyses of secondary OPD data show that a gender inequality exists, they do not provide an understanding of why this occurs. However, from the exceptions identified, it can be speculated that this phenomenon is connected with greater adherence to ethical standards on the part of female physicians and/or the likelihood that fewer opportunities for industrial cooperation are extended to them.