Abstract

BackgroundRecent qualitative studies indicated that physicians interact with pharmaceutical representatives depending on the relative weight of the benefits to the risks and are also influenced by a variety of experiences and circumstances. However, these studies do not provide enough information about if, when, how and why their attitudes and behaviors change over time.Methods and FindingsA qualitative study using semi-structured face-to-face individual interviews was conducted on 9 Japanese physicians who attended a symposium on conflicts of interest held in Tokyo. Interviews were designed to explore chronological changes in individual physicians' attitude and behavior concerning relationships with pharmaceutical representatives and factors affecting such changes. Their early interaction with pharmaceutical representatives was passive as physicians were not explicitly aware of the meaning of such interaction. They began to think on their own about how to interact with pharmaceutical representatives as they progressed in their careers. Their attitude toward pharmaceutical representatives changed over time. Factors affecting attitudinal change included work environment (local regulations and job position), role models, views of patients and the public, acquisition of skills in information seeking and evidence-based medicine, and learning about the concepts of professionalism and conflict of interest. However, the change in attitude was not necessarily followed by behavioral change, apparently due to rationalization and conformity to social norms.ConclusionsPhysicians' attitudes toward relationships with pharmaceutical representatives changed over time and factors affecting such changes were various. Paying attention to these factors and creating new social norms may be both necessary to produce change in behavior consistent with change in attitude.

Highlights

  • The most important professional responsibility of physicians is serving patients’ best interest

  • A gift-giving relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry is ethically problematic for the following reasons: gifts cost money [7]; acceptance of gifts possibly erodes the faith of a patient in his or her doctor [8,9]; gifts establish the obligation to respond possibly resulting in influence on physicians’ decisions in patient care [10,11]

  • There is little systematic research on the impact of financial support for continuing education for physicians, there are some reports of potential bias in favor of the pharmaceutical industry [13,14,15]

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The most important professional responsibility of physicians is serving patients’ best interest. Pharmaceutical representatives (PRs) give physicians a variety of gifts, information about products, and financial support for educational events, all with the aim of promoting products [1,2,3,4,5,6]. Recent qualitative studies indicated that physicians interact with pharmaceutical representatives depending on the relative weight of the benefits to the risks and are influenced by a variety of experiences and circumstances. These studies do not provide enough information about if, when, how and why their attitudes and behaviors change over time

Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call