These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Effect of educational interventions and medical school policies on medical students' attitudes toward pharmaceutical marketing practices: a multi-institutional study.
    Author: Kao AC, Braddock C, Clay M, Elliott D, Epstein SK, Filstead W, Hotze T, May W, Reenan J.
    Journal: Acad Med; 2011 Nov; 86(11):1454-62. PubMed ID: 21952057.
    Abstract:
    PURPOSE: To determine the effect of educational interventions on medical students' attitudes toward pharmaceutical industry marketing practices and whether restrictive medical school policies governing medicine-industry interactions are associated with student support for banning such interactions. METHOD: Prospective cohort study involving the graduating classes of 2009 (intervention, n=474) and 2010 (control, n=459) at four U.S. medical schools. Intervention students experienced a former pharmaceutical representative's presentation, faculty debate, and a Web-based course. Both groups completed baseline and follow-up attitude surveys about pharmaceutical marketing. RESULTS: A total of 482 students (51.6%) completed both surveys. In regression analyses, intervention students were more likely than control students to think that physicians are strongly or moderately influenced by pharmaceutical marketing (OR, 2.29; 95% CI, 1.46-3.59) and believed they would be more likely to prescribe a company's drug if they accepted that company's gifts and food (OR, 1.68; 95% CI, 1.12-2.52). Intervention students were more likely to support banning interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and students (OR, 4.82; 95% CI, 3.02-7.68) and with physicians (OR, 6.88; 95% CI, 4.04-11.70). Students from schools with more restrictive policies were more likely to support banning interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and students (OR, 1.99; 95% CI, 1.26-3.16) and with physicians (OR, 3.44; 95% CI, 2.05-5.79). CONCLUSIONS: Education about pharmaceutical marketing practices and more restrictive policies governing medicine-industry interactions seem to increase medical students' skepticism about the appropriateness of such marketing practices and disapproval of pharmaceutical representatives in the learning environment.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]