Search

Background: Drug companies rely on their marketing activities to influence physicians. Previous studies showed that pharmaceutical companies succeeded to manage physicians prescribing behavior in developed countries. However, very little studies investigated the impact of pharmaceutical marketing strategies on prescribing pattern in developing countries, middle-eastern countries. The objective of this research was to examine the influence of drug companies' strategies on physicians' prescription behavior in the Lebanese market concerning physicians' demographic variables quantitatively. Moreover, this study tested whether Lebanese physicians considered gifts and samples acceptance as an ethical practice.Methods: Sampling was done by using a non-probability method. An online cross-sectional study was conducted through WhatsApp. A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted during the months of February and March 2018. Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed by using IBM SPSS statistics version 24 software. Chi-square and Cramer's v tests were used to finding sign correlation, and Spearman test was used to measure the strength and direction of a relationship between variables.Results: Results found that pharmaceutical marketing strategies are correlated to physicians' prescribing behavior. We demonstrated that the majority of the promotional tools tested were mostly or sometimes motivating physicians to prescribe promoted drugs. The major tools that physicians agreed to be mostly motivated by are visits of medical representatives and drug samples while sales calls made by pharmaceutical companies are the less influential tool. Regarding gift acceptance, this study demonstrated that physicians consider gifts' acceptance as a non-ethical practice. Results showed that most physicians use free samples to treat their patients. We demonstrated that there is a relationship between physicians' prescribing pattern and their age, gender and the location of practice.Conclusions: Findings of this study provided an insightful work, serving as one of the first humble steps in the imminent direction of merging this paper with the previous literature. From a managerial perspective, pharmaceutical marketing managers of drug companies can use the research findings to design better their strategies directed to the Lebanese physicians who can also benefit from the results obtained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The sales response of an established ethical drug to sales calls by one Belgian pharmaceutical manufacturer is measured. A key feature is the systematic variation in the sales call elasticity over time as a function of the collateral material used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of dispensing free samples has been widely adopted by US pharmaceutical companies. Despite physicians' significant gatekeeper-and decision-maker role in dispensing samples, very few studies in the pharmaceutical marketing literature have empirically examined physicians' free-sample dispensing decisions or their influence on future prescription decisions. The primary objective of this article is to fill the gap in the literature by examining the key determinants in physician sample-dispensing and quantity decisions at the individual-physician level while controlling for targeted marketing activities and unobserved physician heterogeneity. We conceptualize the dual roles of drug samples, experimentation and subsidy, in physicians' prescription decision making, empirically test for the existence of these dual roles, and quantify their long-run sales impact using physician panel data from two therapeutic categories. Our analysis yields strong empirical support for the existence of the dual roles in physician sample-dispensing behavior. Finally, we discuss implications of our findings for pharmaceutical managers and policymakers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives. Free prescription drug samples are used widely in the United States. We sought to examine characteristics of free drug sample recipients nationwide. Methods. We analyzed data on 32681 US residents from the 2003 Medical Expenditure Panel Survey (MEPS), a nationally representative survey. Results. In 2003,12% of Americans received at least 1 free sample. A higher proportion of persons who had continuous health insurance received a free sample (12.9%) than did persons who were uninsured for part or all of the year (9.9%; P<.001). The poorest third of respondents were less likely to receive free samples than were those with incomes at 400% of the federal poverty level or higher. After we controlled for demographic factors, we found that neither insurance status nor income were predictors of the receipt of drug samples. Persons who were uninsured all or part of the year were no more likely to receive free samples (odds ratio [OR] = 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI]=0.087, 1.11) than those who were continuously insured. Conclusions. Poor and uninsured Americans are less likely than wealthy or insured Americans to receive free drug samples. Our findings suggest that free drug samples serve as a marketing tool, not as a safety net. (Am J Public Health. 2008;98:284-289. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2007.114249) [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the opinions and practice patterns of obstetrician-gynecologists on acceptance and use of free drug samples and other incentive items from pharmaceutical representatives. Methods: A questionnaire was mailed in March 2003 to 397 members of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists who participate in the Collaborative Ambulatory Research Network. Results: The response rate was 55%. Most respondents thought it proper to accept drug samples (92%), an informational lunch (77%), an anatomical model (75%) or a well-paid consultantship (53%) from pharmaceutical representatives. A third (33%) of the respondents thought that their own decision to prescribe a drug would probably be influenced by accepting drug samples. Respondents were more likely to think the average doctor's prescribing would be influenced by acceptance of the items than theirs would be (p<0.002). Respondents who distributed drug samples to patients indicated doing so because of patients' financial need (94%) and for their convenience (76%) and less so as a result of knowledge of the efficacy of the sample product (63%). A third (34%) of respondents agreed that interactions with industry should be more strictly regulated. Conclusion: Obstetrician-gynecologists largely indicated that they would act in accordance with what they think is proper regarding accepting incentive items from pharmaceutical representatives. Although accepting free drug samples was considered to be appropriate more often than any other item, samples were most commonly judged to be influential on prescribing practices. The widely accepted practice of receiving and distributing free drug samples needs to be examined more carefully. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Much public attention and considerable controversy surround pharmaceutical marketing practices and their impact on physicians. However, views on the matter have largely been shaped by anecdotal evidence or results from analyses with insufficient controls. Making use of a dynamic fixed-effects distributed lag regression model, we empirically assess the role that two central components of pharmaceutical marketing practices (namely, detailing and sampling) have on physician prescribing behavior. Key differentiating features of our model include its ability to (i) capture persistence in the prescribing process and decompose it into own-growth and competitive-stealing effects, (ii) estimate an unrestricted decay structure of the promotional effects over time, and (iii) control for physician-specific effects that, if not taken into account, induce biased coefficient estimates of detailing and sampling effects. Based on pooled time series cross-sectional data involving three drugs, 24 monthly observations, and 74,075 individual physicians (more than 2 million observations in total), we find that detailing and free drug samples have positive and statistically significant effects on the number of new prescriptions issued by a physician. However, we find that the magnitudes of the effects are modest. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND Interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians have been discussed in numerous publications, however, most articles are limited to surveys and self-report data and often focus on academic or training contexts. We describe the role of pharmaceutical representatives and the use of samples in community. based family practices, using data obtained by directly observing clinical encounters. METHODS We collected detailed descriptive field notes of the direct observations of 53 primary care clinicians and 1588 patient encounters in 18 purposefully selected Nebraska family practices. We used a comparative case study design, that used depth interviews of clinicians and office staff, and included details of the interactions with pharmaceutical representatives and the use of samples in clinical encounters. RESULTS Individual providers and practices displayed noticeable variation in their approaches to drug representatives and samples. We found formal strategies and policies in a minority of practices. Generally there was little structure in the organization and distribution of sample medications at the office level, and detailed patient education regarding these drugs was rarely observed in patient encounters. Nevertheless, samples were used in almost 20% of observed encounters, al times as starter dosages, but often as complete courses of treatment. The benefits derived from contact with the pharmaceutical industry varied substantially, but most often included free medication samples, meals, and patient education materials. CONCLUSIONS Clinicians have a complex symbiosis with the pharmaceutical industry and need to critically evaluate their handling of samples and their contact with pharmaceutical representatives to optimize this relationship and ensure quality patient care. Clinics with specific policies for interactions with drug companies appear to derive more satisfaction from their encounters. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on a study on the purpose of physician's sample (PS) in the context of modern practice era in India. It recalls that free samples were distributed by the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. yet the cost of which are added to the drug formulation cost which will then be shouldered by the patient. The study involved the perception of physicians, medical representatives (MRs) and pharmaceutical company executives over the purpose of PS. Results show that 86% of the respondents believe that such purpose is not served effectively.

The article presents the authors' views on the influence of gifts from the pharmaceutical industry to physicians. They claim that the effects of these gifts are invisible to the physician and that the influence of gifts is difficult to monitor or protect against. They also note there are other practices that do not involve gifts that also place physicians in a precarious situation, such as the distribution of pharmaceutical samples, provider profiling, and corporate sponsorship of medical education.