Effect of Restricting Contact Between Pharmaceutical Company Representatives and Internal Medicine Residents on Posttraining Attitudes and Behavior | Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 18.206.238.77. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC. The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical sales representatives.  JAMA.1995;273:1296-1298.Google Scholar
2.
Stryer D, Bero LA. Characteristics of materials distributed by drug companies: an evaluation of appropriateness.  J Gen Intern Med.1996;11:575-583.Google Scholar
3.
Lexchin J. What information do physicians receive from pharmaceutical representatives?  Can Fam Physician.1997;43:941-945.Google Scholar
4.
Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift?  JAMA.2000;283:373-380.Google Scholar
5.
Orlowski JP, Wateska L. The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns: there's no such thing as a free lunch.  Chest.1992;102:270-273.Google Scholar
6.
Chren MM, Landefeld CS. Physicians' behavior and their interactions with drug companies: a controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary.  JAMA.1994;271:684-689.Google Scholar
7.
Lurie N, Rich EC, Simpson DE.  et al.  Pharmaceutical representatives in academic medical centers.  J Gen Intern Med.1990;5:240-243.Google Scholar
8.
Lichstein PR, Turner RC, O'Brien K. Impact of pharmaceutical company representatives on internal medicine residency programs.  Arch Intern Med.1992;152:1009-1013.Google Scholar
9.
Sergeant MD, Hodgetts PG, Godwin M, Walker DM, McHenry P. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: a survey of family medicine residents in Ontario.  CMAJ.1996;155:1243-1248.Google Scholar
10.
Brontzman GL, Mark DH. The effect of resident attitudes of regulatory policies regarding pharmaceutical representative activities.  J Gen Intern Med.1993;8:130-134.Google Scholar
11.
Hopper JA, Speece MW, Musial JL. Effects of an educational intervention on residents knowledge and attitudes toward interactions with pharmaceutical representatives.  J Gen Intern Med.1997;12:639-642.Google Scholar
12.
Education Council, Residency Training Programme in Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario.  Development of residency program guidelines for interaction with the pharmaceutical industry.  CMAJ.1993;149:405-408.Google Scholar
13.
Guyatt G. Academic medicine and the pharmaceutical industry: a cautionary tale.  CMAJ.1994;150:951-953.Google Scholar
14.
Erola JA. We need a dialogue and discussion, not a new Berlin Wall.  CMAJ.1994;150:955-956.Google Scholar
15.
 Canadian Medical Directory 1998 Edition.  Don Mills, Ontario: Southam Information Products Ltd; 1998.
16.
Stelfox HT, Chua G, O'Rourke K, Detsky AS. Conflict of interest in the debate over calcium-channel antagonists.  N Engl J Med.1998;338:101-106.Google Scholar
17.
Ferguson RP, Rhim E, Belizaire W, Egede L, Carter K, Lansdale T. Encounters with pharmaceutical sales representatives among practicing internists.  Am J Med.1999;107:149-152.Google Scholar
18.
Williams AP, Cockerill R. Report on the 1989 survey of the prescribing experiences and attitudes towards prescription drugs of Ontario physicians. In: Prescriptions for Health: Report of the Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario. Toronto: Pharmaceutical Inquiry of Ontario; 1990:1-102.
19.
Lexchin J. Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: what does the literature say?  CMAJ.1993;149:1401-1407.Google Scholar
20.
Andaleeb SS, Tallman RF. Physician attitudes toward pharmaceutical sales representatives.  Health Care Manage Rev.1995;20:68-76.Google Scholar
21.
Banks JW, Mainous AG. Attitudes of medical school faculty towards gifts from the pharmaceutical industry.  Acad Med.1992;67:610-612.Google Scholar
Original Contribution
October 24/31, 2001

Effect of Restricting Contact Between Pharmaceutical Company Representatives and Internal Medicine Residents on Posttraining Attitudes and Behavior

Author Affiliations

Author Affiliations: University of Toronto, Departments of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, and Medicine, Department of Medicine, Mount Sinai Hospital and University Health Network, Toronto (Drs McCormick, Tomlinson, and Detsky); and Department of Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton (Dr Brill-Edwards), Ontario.

JAMA. 2001;286(16):1994-1999. doi:10.1001/jama.286.16.1994
Abstract

Context The long-term effect of policies restricting contact between residents and pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) during internal medicine training is unknown. The McMaster University Department of Medicine in Hamilton, Ontario, implemented a policy restricting PCR contact with trainees in 1992, whereas the Department of Medicine at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, has no such policy.

Objective To determine if the presence of a restrictive policy and the frequency of contact with PCRs during internal medicine training predict attitudes and behavior several years after completion of training.

Design, Setting, and Participants Retrospective analysis of the attitudes and behavior of 3 cohorts of physicians: University of Toronto trainees, prepolicy McMaster trainees, and postpolicy McMaster trainees. Surveys were mailed to 242 former University of Toronto and 57 former McMaster trainees who completed their internal medicine training between 1990 and 1996, with response rates of 163 (67%) and 42 (74%), respectively.

Main Outcome Measures Physician attitude, assessed by a question about the perceived helpfulness of PCR information, and behavior, assessed by whether physicians met with PCRs in the office and the frequency of contacts with PCRs (current contact score, consisting of conversations with PCRs, PCR-sponsored events attended, gifts, honoraria, and consulting fees received).

Results In both the unadjusted and multiple regression analyses, postpolicy McMaster trainees were less likely to find information from PCRs beneficial in guiding their practice compared with Toronto and prepolicy McMaster trainees, with unadjusted odds ratios (ORs) of 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.20-0.94) and 0.39 (95% CI, 0.13-1.22), respectively. All 3 groups were equally likely to report that they met with PCRs in their office in the past year (88%). Postpolicy McMaster trainees had a lower current contact score compared with Toronto (9.3 vs 10.9; P = .04) and prepolicy McMaster trainees (9.3 vs 10.8; P = .18). In multiple regression models, greater frequency of contact with PCRs during training was a predictor of increased perceived benefit of PCR information (OR, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.13-1.47) and was positively correlated with the current contact score (partial r = 0.49; P<.001). Number of PCR-sponsored rounds attended during training was not a consistent predictor of attitudes or behavior.

Conclusions Policies restricting PCR access to internal medicine trainees and the amount of contact during residency appear to affect future attitudes and behavior of physicians.

×