Doctors say they are not influenced by drug companies' promotions
BMJ 2001; 322 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.322.7294.1081/a (Published 05 May 2001) Cite this as: BMJ 2001;322:1081All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Most doctors thought they themselves are immune to the influences of
pharmaceutical gifts, but 84% felt that other doctors are not. Yet again
we see an example of Actor-Observer bias at work. This phenomenon is well
described in all sorts of situations, over decades of research. Simply
put, we always tend to feel others are more susceptible to temptation,
less able to cope, more likely to make an error, less likely to remain in
control than are we ourselves. This kind of perceptual distortion also
appears in inaccurate perceptions of health risks, such as smoking,
driving after consuming alcohol and having unprotected sex with strangers;
the consequences, of course, won't happen to us.
Just as the consequences of inaccurate health risk perceptions, such
as lung cancer and road accidents, occur all too often, it's a certainty
that gifts and other freebies from pharmaceutical companies produce a good
return for the companies' investments by way of increased prescribing of
proprietary drugs by doctors in receipt of such "hospitality". If it
didn't, such practices would have stopped years ago.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Steinmam's research into the links between the pharmaceutical
industry and the medical profession is timely. Perhaps the most
interesting result was that only 39% of residents thought that industry
promotions influenced their own prescribing while a overwhelming majority
(84%) believed that other doctors prescribing was affected. This may be in
some way be due to the naivety of the medical profession. The
pharmaceutical industry's marketing strategies are well researched and the
medical profession both in Europe and the United States appear to be
passive in the acceptance of drug companies' promotions. This research
appears to show that we are not immune to the effects of such promotional
methods.
Surely there is now a greater need than ever for professional bodies
and institutions (especially training bodies) to have strict guidelines
regarding such promotions. To quote that much-used phrase: "There is no
such thing as a free lunch".
Competing interests: No competing interests
A Pharmacist's Perspective
Every word and action of a pharmaceutical sales representative has
been carefully coreographed and examined in front of reactor panels in
order to make the best impact for their product in the limited amount of
"fact time" they are permitted by their physician customers. It is
extremely successful; that's why they do it.
My job as a pharmacist is often to make sure the physician sees and
understands a more objective view of the promotion. One of our former
resident physicians summed it up best: "I found out that drug reps did
more to confuse me than to enlighten me."
Competing interests: No competing interests