Association of Marketing Interactions With Medical Trainees’ Knowledge About Evidence-Based Prescribing: Results From a National Survey | Clinical Pharmacy and Pharmacology | JAMA Internal Medicine | 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 Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
Gagnon  MA, Lexchin  J.  The cost of pushing pills: a new estimate of pharmaceutical promotion expenditures in the United States.  PLoS Med. 2008;5(1):e1.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Avorn  J, Chen  M, Hartley  R.  Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians.  Am J Med. 1982;73(1):4-8.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Robertson  C, Rose  S, Kesselheim  AS.  Effect of financial relationships on the behaviors of health care professionals: a review of the evidence.  J Law Med Ethics. 2012;40(3):452-466.PubMedGoogle Scholar
Chimonas  S, Evarts  SD, Littlehale  SK, Rothman  DJ.  Managing conflicts of interest in clinical care: the “race to the middle” at U.S. medical schools.  Acad Med. 2013;88(10):1464-1470.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Agrawal  S, Brennan  N, Budetti  P.  The Sunshine Act: effects on physicians.  N Engl J Med. 2013;368(22):2054-2057.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
PhRMA.  Code on interactions with health care professionals. Accessed April 21, 2014.
Prosser  H, Almond  S, Walley  T.  Influences on GPs’ decision to prescribe new drugs-the importance of who says what.  Fam Pract. 2003;20(1):61-68.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Erlanger  HS, Klegon  DA.  Socialization effects of professional school.  Law Soc Rev. 1978;13:11-35.Google ScholarCrossref
Maheux  B, Béland  F.  Changes in students’ sociopolitical attitudes during medical school: socialization or maturation effect?  Soc Sci Med. 1987;24(7):619-624.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Crandall  SJ, Davis  SW, Broeseker  AE, Hildebrandt  C.  A longitudinal comparison of pharmacy and medical students’ attitudes toward the medically underserved.  Am J Pharm Educ. 2008;72(6):148.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Papadakis  MA, Teherani  A, Banach  MA,  et al.  Disciplinary action by medical boards and prior behavior in medical school.  N Engl J Med. 2005;353(25):2673-2682.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Stanford University.  Policy and guidelines for interactions between the Stanford University School of Medicine, the Stanford Hospital and Clinics, and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital with the pharmaceutical, biotech, medical device, and hospital and research equipment and supplies industries (“industry”). Accessed April 21, 2014.
Austad  KE, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about the pharmaceutical industry: a systematic review.  PLoS Med. 2011;8(5):e1001037. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001037.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Austad  KE, Avorn  J, Franklin  JM, Kowal  MK, Campbell  EG, Kesselheim  AS.  Changing interactions between physician trainees and the pharmaceutical industry: a national survey.  J Gen Intern Med. 2013;28(8):1064-1071.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Campbell  EG, Regan  S, Gruen  RL,  et al.  Professionalism in medicine: results of a national survey of physicians.  Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(11):795-802.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
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):1034-1042.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Williams  RL.  A note on robust variance estimation for cluster-correlated data.  Biometrics. 2000;56(2):645-646.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Epstein  AJ, Busch  SH, Busch  AB, Asch  DA, Barry  CL.  Does exposure to conflict of interest policies in psychiatry residency affect antidepressant prescribing?  Med Care. 2013;51(2):199-203.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
King  M, Essick  C, Bearman  P, Ross  JS.  Medical school gift restriction policies and physician prescribing of newly marketed psychotropic medications: difference-in-differences analysis.  BMJ. 2013;346:f264.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Wilson  D.  Drug app comes free, ads included.New York Times. Jul 28, 2011: B1.
Johnson  TP, Wislar  JS.  Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys.  JAMA. 2012;307(17):1805-1806.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
O’Reilly  KB.  Ban on pharma meals for physicians overturned. Accessed April 21, 2014.
Original Investigation
August 2014

Association of Marketing Interactions With Medical Trainees’ Knowledge About Evidence-Based Prescribing: Results From a National Survey

Author Affiliations
  • 1Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital–Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 2Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
  • 3Mongan Institute for Health Policy–Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
  • 4Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(8):1283-1290. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.2202

Importance  In recent years, numerous US medical schools and academic medical centers have enacted policies preventing pharmaceutical sales representatives from interacting directly with students. Little is known about how pharmaceutical sales representatives affect trainees’ knowledge about pharmaceutical prescribing.

Objective  To determine whether there is an association between medical trainees’ interactions with pharmaceutical promotion and their preferences in medication use.

Design, Setting, and Participants  We surveyed a nationally representative sample of first- and fourth-year medical students and third-year residents by randomly selecting at least 14 trainees at each level per school.

Exposures  All trainees were asked how often they used different educational resources to learn about prescription drugs. Among fourth-year students and residents, we posed a series of multiple choice knowledge questions asking about the appropriate initial therapy for clinical scenarios involving patients with diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, and difficulty sleeping.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Evidence-based answers followed widely used clinical guidelines, while marketed-drug answers favored brand-name drugs over generic alternatives. We used survey answers to build an industry relations index assessing each trainee’s level of acceptance of pharmaceutical promotion; we used proportional odds logistic regression models to estimate the association between the index and responses to the knowledge questions.

Results  The 1601 student (49.0% response rate) and 735 resident (42.9% response rate) respondents reported common use of unfiltered sources of drug information such as Google (74.2%-88.9%) and Wikipedia (45.2%-84.5%). We found that 48% to 90% of fourth-year students and residents accurately identified evidence-based prescribing choices. A 10-point higher industry relations index was associated with 15% lower odds of selecting an evidence-based prescribing choice (odds ratio [OR], 0.85; 95% CI, 0.79-0.92) (P < .001). There was also a significant association between the industry relations index and greater odds of choosing to prescribe brand-name drugs (OR, 1.08; 95% CI, 1.00-1.16) (P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance  Among physician trainees, our survey showed an association between positive attitudes toward industry-physician interactions and less knowledge about evidence-based prescribing and greater inclination to recommend brand-name drugs. Policies intended to insulate trainees from pharmaceutical marketing may promote better educational outcomes.