Abstract

BackgroundPharmaceutical representatives provide medicines information on their promoted products to doctors. However, studies have shown that the quality of this information is often low. No study has assessed the medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Malaysia and no recent evidence in Australia is present. We aimed to compare the provision of medicines information by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Australia and Malaysia.MethodsFollowing a pharmaceutical representative's visit, general practitioners in Australia and Malaysia who had agreed to participate, were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the main product and claims discussed during the encounter. The questionnaire focused on provision of product information including indications, adverse effects, precautions, contraindications and the provision of information on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) listings and restrictions (in Australia only). Descriptive statistics were produced. Chi-square analysis and clustered linear regression were used to assess differences in Australia and Malaysia.ResultsSignificantly more approved product information sheets were provided in Malaysia (78%) than in Australia (53%) (P < 0.001). In both countries, general practitioners reported that indications (Australia, 90%, Malaysia, 93%) and dosages (Australia, 76%, Malaysia, 82%) were frequently provided by pharmaceutical representatives. Contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects were often omitted in the presentations (range 25% - 41%). General practitioners in Australia and Malaysia indicated that in more than 90% of presentations, pharmaceutical representatives partly or fully answered their questions on contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects. More general practitioners in Malaysia (85%) than in Australia (60%) reported that pharmaceutical representatives should have mentioned contraindications, precautions for use, drug interaction or adverse effects spontaneously (P < 0.001). In 48% of the Australian presentations, general practitioners reported the pharmaceutical representatives failed to mention information on PBS listings to general practitioners.ConclusionsInformation on indications and dosages were usually provided by pharmaceutical representatives in Australia and Malaysia. However, risk and harmful effects of medicines were often missing in their presentations. Effective control of medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives is needed.

Highlights

  • Pharmaceutical representatives provide medicines information on their promoted products to doctors

  • We aimed to compare the quality of medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Australia and Malaysia, in particular the provision of information on potential harmful effects of a medicine including contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects

  • This study was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the University of South Australia, the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM) and the Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia (UKM)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Pharmaceutical representatives provide medicines information on their promoted products to doctors. No study has assessed the medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Malaysia and no recent evidence in Australia is present. Sales growth has nearly doubled since 2001 [1] Pharmaceutical companies secure their market share by using promotional techniques, In 1997, a systematic review [5] found four studies that examined medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in three developed countries; Finland, the US and Australia. Medical students and doctors acted as participant observers and filled out questionnaires after the interactions [2,6] In both studies, indications (range per study 90-94%) and generic names (range per study 62-78%) were usually mentioned by pharmaceutical representatives. Side effects (range per study 27-41%) and contraindications were less frequently provided (range per study 2534%)

Objectives
Methods
Results
Conclusion
Full Text
Paper version not known

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

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.