Cited by 32Pharmaceutical industry and healthcareGlobal Public Health Policies and EpidemiologyPharmaceutical Economics and Policy

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

Open access
Alkhaled, Lina, Kahale, Lara, Nass, Hala, Brax, Hneine, Fadlallah, Racha, Badr, Kamal, Akl, Elie A·2014·BMJ Open

Abstract

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.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004880

Cites

15 of 15 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Alkhaled, L., Kahale, L., Nass, H., Brax, H., Fadlallah, R., Badr, K., & Akl, E. A.
Affiliations
  • American University of Beirut (LB)
  • Damascus University (SY)
  • Saint Joseph University (LB)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
Corresponding author
Akl, Elie A
Venue
BMJ Open
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2014-07
Volume
4
Issue
7
Pages
e004880
ISSN
2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2157721981
Cited by
32
References
15
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc
Locations
  • BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Global Public Health Policies and Epidemiology
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
Keywords
physician-industry relations, pharmaceutical industry, pharmaceutical sales representatives, prescription behavior, pharmaceutical industry policy, free samples, promotional materials, legislative intervention, educational intervention, conflicts of interest
MeSH terms
Drug Industry, Interprofessional Relations, Physicians, Policy

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review