IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0160540.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

Author

Listed:
  • Racha Fadlallah
  • Hala Nas
  • Dana Naamani
  • Fadi El-Jardali
  • Ihsan Hammoura
  • Lina Al-Khaled
  • Hneine Brax
  • Lara Kahale
  • Elie A Akl

Abstract

Objective: To systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry. Methods: We included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country. Results: Of the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians’ disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies. Conclusion: The awareness of participants was low for physicians’ receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.

Suggested Citation

  • Racha Fadlallah & Hala Nas & Dana Naamani & Fadi El-Jardali & Ihsan Hammoura & Lina Al-Khaled & Hneine Brax & Lara Kahale & Elie A Akl, 2016. "Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-34, August.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160540
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0160540
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160540
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0160540&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0160540?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill A Fisher & Corey A Kalbaugh, 2012. "United States Private-Sector Physicians and Pharmaceutical Contract Research: A Qualitative Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-8, July.
    2. Susanna Priolo & Andras Fehervary & Phil Riggins & Kathy Redmond, 2012. "Assessing Stakeholder Opinion on Relations between Cancer Patient Groups and Pharmaceutical Companies in Europe," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 5(2), pages 127-139, June.
    3. Holbrook, Anne & Lexchin, Joel & Pullenayegum, Eleanor & Campbell, Craig & Marlow, Bernard & Troyan, Sue & Weijer, Charles & Blackmer, Jeff & Brazil, Kevin & Willison, Don, 2013. "What do Canadians think about physician–pharmaceutical industry interactions?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 112(3), pages 255-263.
    4. Babar, Z.U.D. & Kan, S.W. & Scahill, S., 2014. "Interventions promoting the acceptance and uptake of generic medicines: A narrative review of the literature," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(3), pages 285-296.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tom Latten & Daan Westra & Federica Angeli & Aggie Paulus & Marleen Struss & Dirk Ruwaard, 2018. "Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: Going beyond the gift – An explorative review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    2. Anju Murayama & Yuki Senoo & Kayo Harada & Yasuhiro Kotera & Hiroaki Saito & Toyoaki Sawano & Yosuke Suzuki & Tetsuya Tanimoto & Akihiko Ozaki, 2022. "Awareness and Perceptions among Members of a Japanese Cancer Patient Advocacy Group Concerning the Financial Relationships between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Physicians," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-24, March.
    3. Grundy, Quinn & Habibi, Roojin & Shnier, Adrienne & Mayes, Christopher & Lipworth, Wendy, 2018. "Decoding disclosure: Comparing conflict of interest policy among the United States, France, and Australia," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 122(5), pages 509-518.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Shai Mulinari & Andreas Vilhelmsson & Emily Rickard & Piotr Ozieranski, 2020. "Five years of pharmaceutical industry funding of patient organisations in Sweden: Cross-sectional study of companies, patient organisations and drugs," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. Bastian A. de Mol, 2014. "Regulation of risk management of medical devices and the role of litigation," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(6), pages 735-748, June.
    3. Tom Latten & Daan Westra & Federica Angeli & Aggie Paulus & Marleen Struss & Dirk Ruwaard, 2018. "Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: Going beyond the gift – An explorative review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    4. Anju Murayama & Yuki Senoo & Kayo Harada & Yasuhiro Kotera & Hiroaki Saito & Toyoaki Sawano & Yosuke Suzuki & Tetsuya Tanimoto & Akihiko Ozaki, 2022. "Awareness and Perceptions among Members of a Japanese Cancer Patient Advocacy Group Concerning the Financial Relationships between the Pharmaceutical Industry and Physicians," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(6), pages 1-24, March.
    5. Moriarty, Frank & Larkin, James & Fahey, Tom, 2021. "Payments reported by the pharmaceutical industry in Ireland from 2015 to 2019: An observational study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 125(10), pages 1297-1304.
    6. Ray Moynihan & Brooke Nickel & Jolyn Hersch & Elaine Beller & Jenny Doust & Shane Compton & Alexandra Barratt & Lisa Bero & Kirsten McCaffery, 2015. "Public Opinions about Overdiagnosis: A National Community Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    7. Valérie Piguet & Stéphanie D’Incau & Marie Besson & Jules Desmeules & Christine Cedraschi, 2015. "Prescribing Generic Medication in Chronic Musculoskeletal Pain Patients: An Issue of Representations, Trust, and Experience in a Swiss Cohort," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-12, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0160540. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.