| Title |
Attitudes of medical students towards incentives offered by pharmaceutical companies- perspective from a developing nation- a cross sectional study
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Medical Ethics, May 2014
|
| DOI | 10.1186/1472-6939-15-36 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Usman Tariq Siddiqui, Amarah Shakoor, Sarah Kiani, Farwa Ali, Maryam Sharif, Arun Kumar, Qasim Raza, Naseer Khan, Sardar Mohammed Alamzaib, Syed Farid-ul-Husnain |
| Abstract |
A training physician has his first interaction with a pharmaceutical representative during medical school. Medical students are often provided with small gifts such as pens, calendars and books, as well as free lunches as part of drug promotion offers. Ethical impact of these transactions as perceived by young medical students has not been investigated in Pakistan before. This study aimed to assess the association of socio-demographic variables with the attitudes of medical students towards pharmaceutical companies and their incentives. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 67 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 1% |
| Unknown | 66 | 99% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Bachelor | 8 | 12% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 7 | 10% |
| Researcher | 6 | 9% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 9% |
| Professor > Associate Professor | 6 | 9% |
| Other | 21 | 31% |
| Unknown | 13 | 19% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 31 | 46% |
| Social Sciences | 6 | 9% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 4 | 6% |
| Psychology | 2 | 3% |
| Arts and Humanities | 2 | 3% |
| Other | 8 | 12% |
| Unknown | 14 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 May 2014.
All research outputs
#18,371,959
of 22,755,127 outputs
Outputs from BMC Medical Ethics
#894
of 991 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#164,177
of 227,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Medical Ethics
#19
of 21 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,755,127 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 991 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 227,397 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 21 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.