Why lunch matters: Assessing physicians' perceptions about industry relationships

Journal of Continuing Education in the Health Professions

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 197-204

  Fugh Berman, Adriane J ^a   Scialli, Anthony R ^b   Bell, Alicia M ^a  

^a GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^b TETRA TECH INC   (United States)

Author keywords

Continuing; Education; Ethics; Graduate medical education; Medical; Pharmaceutical industry; Physician behavior; Prescribing behavior; Undergraduate medical education

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLINICAL PRACTICE; DRUG INDUSTRY; FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT; HEALTH PERSONNEL ATTITUDE; HUMAN; INTERVENTION STUDY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; PERCEPTION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PHYSICIAN; PSYCHOLOGICAL ASPECT; PUBLIC RELATIONS;

ATTITUDE OF HEALTH PERSONNEL; DRUG INDUSTRY; EDUCATION, MEDICAL, CONTINUING; HUMANS; INTERPROFESSIONAL RELATIONS; INTERVENTION STUDIES; MARKETING OF HEALTH SERVICES; PERCEPTION; PERSUASIVE COMMUNICATION; PHYSICIAN'S PRACTICE PATTERNS; PHYSICIANS;

EID: 78349279587     PISSN: 08941912     EISSN: 1554558X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/chp.20081     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education ACGME. Principles to Guide the Relationship Between Graduate Medical Education and Industry. Accessed May 25, 2010.
2. 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;295:429-433.
3. Association of American Medical Colleges. Industry Funding of Medical Education, Report of the AAMC Task Force. Accessed May 25, 2010.
4. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. In: Lo B, Field M, eds. Available from: Published April 21, 2009. Accessed May 15, 2010.
5. 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(9):684-689.
6. Lurie N, Rich EC, Simpson DE, et al. Pharmaceutical representatives in academic medical centers: interaction with faculty and housestaff. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5(3):240-243.
7. Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000;19;283(3):373-80.
8. Sigworth SK, Nettleman MD, Cohen GM. Pharmaceutical branding of resident physicians. JAMA 2001;286(9):1024-1025.
9. McKinney WP, Schiedermayer DL, Lurie N, Simpson DE, Goodman JL, Rich EC. Attitudes of internal medicine faculty and residents toward professional interaction with pharmaceutical sales representatives. JAMA 1990;264(13):1693-1697.
10. Steinman MA, Shlipak MG, McPhee SJ. Of principles and pens: attitudes and practices of medicine housestaff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. Am J Med.. 2001;110(110):551-557.
11. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA 2003;290:252-255.
12. Zipkin DA, Steinman MA. Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training: a thematic review. J Gen Intern Med.. 2005;20:777-786.
13. Carroll AE, Vreeman RC, Buddenbaum J, Inui TS. To what extent do educational interventions impact medical trainees' attitudes and behaviors regarding industry-trainee and industry-physician relationships. Pediatrics. 2007;120(120):e1528-e1535.
14. Tipping J, Donahue J, Hannah E. Value of unstructured time (breaks) during formal continuing medical education events. Contin Educ Health Prof. 2001;21(21):90-96.
15. ACCME Annual Report Data 2009. Accessed August 19, 2010.
16. Katz HP, Goldfinger SE, Fletcher SW. Academia-industry collaboration in continuing medical education: description of two approaches. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2002;22(1):43-54.
17. Ellison JA, Hennekens CH, Wang J, Lundberg GD, Sulkes D. Low rates of reporting commercial bias by physicians following online continuing medical education activities. Am J Med. 2009;122(9):875-878.
18. Mueller PS, Hook CC, Litin SC. Physician preferences and attitudes regarding industry support of CME programs. Am J Med. 2007;120(120):281-285.
19. Rutledge P, Crookes D, McKinstry B, Maxwell SR. Do doctors rely on pharmaceutical industry funding to attend conferences and do they perceive that this creates a bias in their drug selection? Results from a questionnaire survey. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2003;12(8):663-667.
20. Cornish JK, Leist JC. What constitutes commercial bias compared with the personal opinion of experts? J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2006;26(2):161-167.
21. Quigg M, Lado FA. Interrater reliability to assure valid content in peer review of CME-accredited presentations. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 2009;29(29):242-245.
22. Fugh-Berman A, Melnick D. Off-label promotion, on-target sales. PLoS Med. 2008;5(5):e210.
23. Segovis CM, Mueller PS, Rethlefsen ML, et al. If you feed them, they will come: a prospective study of the effects of complimentary food on attendance and physician attitudes at medical grand rounds at an academic medical center. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:22.
24. Cialdini RB. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Collins; 2007.
25. Sagarin BJ, Cialdini RB, Rice WE. Dispelling the illusion of invulnerability: the motivations and mechanisms of resistance to persuasion. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2002;83(83):526-541.
26. Aiken LS, Gerend MA, Jackson KM. Subjective risk and health protective behavior: Cancer screening and cancer prevention. In: Baum A, Revenson T, Singer J, eds. Handbook of Health Psychology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001.
27. 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(107):149-152.
28. McCormick BB, Tomlinson G, Brill-Edwards P, Detsky AS. Effect of restricting contact between pharmaceutical company representatives and internal medicine residents on posttraining attitudes and behavior. JAMA 2001;286(16):1994-1999.
29. 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.