[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.175.201.14. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
1.
Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift?  JAMA. 2000;283(3):373-38010647801PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Campbell EG. Doctors and drug companies—scrutinizing influential relationships.  N Engl J Med. 2007;357(18):1796-179717978288PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Fugh-Berman A, Ahari S. Following the script: how drug reps make friends and influence doctors.  PLoS Med. 2007;4(4):e15017455991PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Steinman MA, Bero LA, Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Narrative review: the promotion of gabapentin: an analysis of internal industry documents.  Ann Intern Med. 2006;145(4):284-29316908919PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
5.
Steinman MA, Harper GM, Chren MM, Landefeld CS, Bero LA. Characteristics and impact of drug detailing for gabapentin.  PLoS Med. 2007;4(4):e13417455990PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L,  et al.  Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers.  JAMA. 2006;295(4):429-43316434633PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
7.
Chimonas S, Brennan TA, Rothman DJ. Physicians and drug representatives: exploring the dynamics of the relationship.  J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(2):184-19017356984PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
8.
Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM,  et al.  Medical students' exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey.  JAMA. 2005;294(9):1034-104216145023PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9.
Adams JS. Inequity in social exchange.  Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 1965;2:267-299Google Scholar
10.
Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, Miller LG, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. A national survey of physician-industry relationships.  N Engl J Med. 2007;356(17):1742-175017460228PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
11.
Cohen J, Cohen P, West SG, Aiken LS. Applied Multiple Regression/Correlation for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum; 1983
12.
Babcock L, Loewenstein G, Issacharoff S, Camerer C. Biased judgments of fairness in bargaining.  Am Econ Rev. 1995;85:1337-1343Google Scholar
13.
Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry.  JAMA. 2003;290(2):252-25512851281PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
14.
Mazar N, Amir O, Ariely D. The dishonesty of honest people: a theory of self-concept maintenance.  J Mark Res. 2008;45(6):633-644Google ScholarCrossref
15.
Montague R. The perspective from neuroscience. In: The Scientific Basis of Influence and Reciprocity: A Symposium. June 12, 2007. https://services.aamc.org/publications/index.cfm?fuseaction=Product.displayForm&prd_id=215&cfid=1&cftoken=8BD66981-BC84-D32B-566C0DAEC4642307. Accessed August 19, 2010
16.
King-Casas B, Tomlin D, Anen C, Camerer CF, Quartz SR, Montague PR. Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange.  Science. 2005;308(5718):78-8315802598PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
17.
Zipkin DA, Steinman MA. Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training: a thematic review.  J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(8):777-78616050893PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Contribution
September 15, 2010

Effect of Reminders of Personal Sacrifice and Suggested Rationalizations on Residents' Self-Reported Willingness to Accept Gifts: A Randomized Trial

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

JAMA. 2010;304(11):1204-1211. doi:10.1001/jama.2010.1310
Abstract

Context Despite expanding research on the prevalence and consequences of conflicts of interest in medicine, little attention has been given to the psychological processes that enable physicians to rationalize the acceptance of gifts.

Objective To determine whether reminding resident physicians of the sacrifices made to obtain training, as well as suggesting this as a potential rationalization, increases self-stated willingness to accept gifts from industry.

Design, Setting, and Participants Three hundred one US resident physicians from 2 sample populations (pediatrics and family medicine) who were recruited during March-July 2009 participated in a survey presented as evaluating quality of life and values.

Intervention Physicians were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 3 different online surveys. The sacrifice reminders survey (n = 120) asked questions about sacrifices made in medical training, followed by questions regarding the acceptability of receiving gifts from industry. The suggested rationalization survey (n = 121) presented the same sacrifice questions, followed by a suggested possible rationalization (based on sacrifices made in medical training) for acceptance of gifts, before the questions regarding the acceptability of gifts. The control survey (n = 60) asked about the acceptability of gifts before asking questions about sacrifices or suggesting a rationalization.

Main Outcome Measures Physician self-stated acceptability of receiving gifts from industry.

Results Reminding physicians of sacrifices made in obtaining their education resulted in gifts being evaluated as more acceptable: 21.7% (13/60) in the control group vs 47.5% (57/120) in the sacrifice reminders group (odds ratio, 1.81; 95% confidence interval, 1.27-2.58; P = .001). Although most residents disagreed with the suggested rationalization, exposure to it further increased the perceived acceptability of gifts to 60.3% (73/121) in that group (odds ratio relative to sacrifice reminders group, 1.45; 95% confidence interval, 1.22-1.72; P < .001).

Conclusions Providing resident physicians with reminders of sacrifices increased the perceived acceptability of industry-sponsored gifts. Including a rationalization statement further increased gift acceptability.

×