Understanding conflicts of interest in rational drug prescription in a developing country: A stakeholder analysis, healthcare guidelines and ethical public health issues.

Abstract

Rational drug prescription (RDP) is one of the main components of the healthcare systems. Irrational prescribing can bring about numerous negative consequences for the patients and governmental agencies. This study aims to analyze the involvement of stakeholders in rational drug prescribing, their position (opponent or proponent), and the rationale behind it. This was a qualitative study conducted in 2019. Semi-structured face-to-face interviews were conducted with 40 stakeholders. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques with maximum heterogeneity were adopted to select the interviewees. Data was analyzed by MAXQDA software using thematic approach. Iranian Food and Drug Administration employs the highest authority on the rational prescribing policy. Although the Ministry of Health and Medical Education, the Social Security Organization as one of the main health insurance organizations, pharmaceutical companies, and the Medical Council of the Islamic Republic of Iran, are among agencies that have great authority to improve rational prescribing, they fail to act professionally as they have conflicting interests. Remarkably, the Iran Food and Drug Administration, insurance organizations, family physicians, and patients, highly support the rational prescribing policy while the pharmaceutical companies display the least support for it. To make the prescription and using drugs more rational, policy makers should focus on different sources of conflicts of interest that different actors have. They should devise legal, behavior and financial policies accordingly to lessen or at least neutralize these conflicting interests, otherwise achieving RDP would be impossible in short and long terms.