Japanese Practicing Physicians' Relationships with Pharmaceutical Representatives: A National Survey

Abstract

BackgroundPrevious surveys on the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical representatives (PRs) have been of limited quality. The purpose of our survey of practicing physicians in Japan was to assess the extent of their involvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities, physician characteristics that predict such involvement, attitudes toward relationships with PRs, correlations between the extent of involvement and attitudes, and differences in the extent of involvement according to self-reported prescribing behaviors.Methods and FindingsFrom January to March 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2621 practicing physicians in seven specialties: internal medicine, general surgery, orthopedic surgery, pediatrics, obstetrics-gynecology, psychiatry, and ophthalmology. The response rate was 54%. Most physicians met with PRs (98%), received drug samples (85%) and stationery (96%), and participated in industry-sponsored continuing medical education (CME) events at the workplace (80%) and outside the workplace (93%). Half accepted meals outside the workplace (49%) and financial subsidies to attend CME events (49%). Rules at the workplace banning both meetings with PRs and gifts predicted less involvement of physicians in promotional activities. Physicians valued information from PRs. They believed that they were unlikely to be influenced by promotional activities, but that their colleagues were more susceptible to such influence than themselves. They were divided about the appropriateness of low-value gifts. The extent of physician involvement in promotional activities was positively correlated with the attitudes that PRs are a valuable source of information and that gifts are appropriate. The extent of such involvement was higher among physicians who prefer to ask PRs for information when a new medication becomes available, physicians who are not satisfied with patient encounters ending only with advice, and physicians who prefer to prescribe brand-name medications.ConclusionsInvolvement in pharmaceutical promotional activities is widespread among practicing physicians in Japan. The extent of such involvement varies according to certain physician characteristics. As a group, they are at risk for influence by promotional activities.

Public Relations as Part of Integrated Communication of an Enterprise-Consumer Oriented On

“…The "pull" strategy, on the other hand, depends on advertising and promotion to consumers (Parker & Pettijohn, 2005). Although the general public is somewhat unaware of the "coziness" between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, these ties remain controversial among doctors (Saito, Mukohara, & Bito, 2010).…”

Physicians' attitudes towards interaction with the pharmaceutical industry

“…There is accumulating evidence from different parts of the world indicating that nearly all physicians maintain some sort of relationship with the pharmaceutical industry (1)(2)(3). This relationship may be seen as beneficial to patients, as physicians and the pharmaceutical industry have common interests in conducting research and developing new, safe and effective medications (4).…”

Prescription preferences in antipsychotics and attitude towards the pharmaceutical industry in Belgium

“…This is notable because in other studies physicians report less influence 3 17 18. For instance, in the survey of Saito et al 17 and Halperin et al 18 only 6% and 5% of the physicians, respectively, claimed to experience an impact on their prescribing behaviour. In those same surveys, 16%17 and 33%18 of the questioned physicians agreed that their colleagues were affected.…”

“…For instance, in the survey of Saito et al 17 and Halperin et al 18 only 6% and 5% of the physicians, respectively, claimed to experience an impact on their prescribing behaviour. In those same surveys, 16%17 and 33%18 of the questioned physicians agreed that their colleagues were affected. Given these numbers, we might conclude that our respondents have been more honest or insightful.…”

“…First, despite the use of the standard techniques for improving responses to mailed surveys, the overall response rate did not reach 60%, generally considered to be necessary for the validity of a survey 17 25. The response rate of GPs was especially low and nearly twice as many psychiatrists answered the survey than GPs.…”