Extent of physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review.

Background: Pharmaceutical companies spend large amounts of money promoting their products to physicians. There is evidence that physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies negatively affect their prescribing patterns. The objective of this study was to systematically review the extent of the relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: Studies assessing the extent of any type of interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in July 2016. Reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to complete study selection, data abstraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively. Results: We included 11 eligible studies (7 quantitative and 4 qualitative). Quantitative studies found that pharmaceutical company representatives visited at least 90% of physicians. Printed material, stationery items and drug samples were the most frequently received gifts. Two of the studies assessing direct payment found percentages of 16 and 5%, respectively. Findings of qualitative studies were consistent with those of quantitative studies. In addition, they revealed an increasing tendency for pharmaceutical companies to provide expensive personal gifts, sponsor social events and offer cash as inducements to physicians based on their demands. They also identified building personal relationships, creating a sense of indebtedness and emotional blackmailing as commonly used techniques to influence physicians. Conclusion: A relatively high percentage of physicians in LMICs interact with pharmaceutical companies. Findings have implications for policy and practice, given the current extent of interaction is likely affecting the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians.

Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the perceptions and attitudes of physicians is important. This knowledge assists in the efforts to reduce the impact of their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry on clinical practice. It appears that most studies on such perceptions and attitudes have been conducted in high-income countries. The objective was to systematically review the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interactions with pharmaceutical companies. METHODS: Eligible studies addressed any type of interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. The outcomes of interest included knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of practicing physicians. The search strategy covered MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Two reviewers completed in duplicate and independently study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. The data synthesis consisted of a narrative summary of the findings stratified by knowledge, beliefs and attitudes. RESULTS: We included ten reports from nine eligible studies, each of which had a number of methodological limitations. Four studies found that the top perceived benefits of this interaction were receiving information and rewards. In five out of eight studies assessing the perception regarding the impact of the interaction on the behavior of physician prescription, the majority of participants believed it to be minor. In one of these studies, participants perceived that impact to be lesser when asked about their own behavior. The attitudes of physicians towards information and rewards provided by pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) (assessed in 5 and 2 studies respectively) varied across studies. In the only study assessing their attitudes towards pharmaceutical-sponsored Continuing Medical Education, physicians considered local conferences to have higher impact. Their attitudes towards developing policies restricting physicians' interactions with PCRs were positive in two studies. In one study, the majority of participants did not mind the public knowing that physicians were receiving gifts and awards from drug companies. CONCLUSIONS: This review identified few studies conducted in low and middle-income countries. While physicians generally perceived the impact of interactions on their behavior to be minor, their attitudes toward receiving information and rewards varied across studies.

Validity of tools used for surveying physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical company: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: There is evidence that physicians' prescription behavior is negatively affected by the extent of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies. In order to develop and implement policies and interventions for better management of interactions, we need to understand physicians' perspectives on this issue. Surveys addressing physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies need to use validated tools to ensure the validity of their findings. OBJECTIVE: To assess the validity of tools used in surveys of physicians about the extent and nature of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies, and about their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards such interactions; and to identify those tools that have been formally validated. METHODS: We developed a search strategy with the assistance of a medical librarian. We electronically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in September 2015. Teams of two reviewers conducted data selection and data abstraction. They identified eligible studies in one table and then abstracted the relevant data from the studies with validated tools in another table. Tables were piloted and standardized. RESULTS: We identified one validated questionnaire out of the 11 assessing the nature and extent of the interaction, and three validated questionnaires out of the 47 assessing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians toward the interaction. None of these validated questionnaires were used in more than one survey. CONCLUSION: The available supporting evidence of the issue of physicians' interaction with pharmaceutical company is of low quality. There is a need for research to develop and validate tools to survey physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical companies.

Legislative, educational, policy and other interventions targeting physicians' interaction with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically review the effects of interventions targeting practising physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included observational studies, non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) and RCTs evaluating legislative, educational, policy or other interventions targeting the interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy included an electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two reviewers performed duplicate and independent study selection, data abstraction and assessment of risk of bias. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. We summarised the findings narratively because the nature of the data did not allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 11 189 identified citations, one RCT and three observational studies met the eligibility criteria. All four studies specifically targeted one type of interaction with pharmaceutical companies, that is, interactions with drug representatives. The RCT provided moderate quality evidence of no effect of a 'collaborative approach' between the pharmaceutical industry and a health authority. The three observational studies provided low quality evidence suggesting a positive effect of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies (by restricting free samples, promotional material, and meetings with pharmaceutical company representatives) on prescription behaviour. LIMITATIONS: We identified too few studies to allow strong conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests a potential impact of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and drug representatives on physicians' prescription behaviour. We found no evidence concerning interventions affecting other types of interaction with pharmaceutical companies.