↓ Skip to main content

Interaction and medical inducement between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians: a meta-synthesis

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (70th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
78 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Interaction and medical inducement between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians: a meta-synthesis
Published in
Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s40545-016-0089-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Shahrzad Salmasi, Long Chiau Ming, Tahir Mehmood Khan

Abstract

It has been proven that the interaction between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians can directly influence the latter's prescribing behaviour. This meta-synthesis aims to explore the available studies regarding the nature of the interaction that takes place between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians. It highlights the different aspects of that interaction by investigating the reasons why these meetings happen in the first place, their benefits and drawbacks and their impact on patients' health and, ultimately, the health of the public. A search for published articles was conducted in April 2015. Three databases (PubMed, Ovid Medline, and ProQuest) were searched for articles published between January 2000 and April 2015. Authors worked autonomously and in pairs to select eligible articles. In this case, the meta-synthesis approach was used to develop a fuller understanding and to facilitate new knowledge by bringing together qualitative findings on physician-PR interaction. 'Meta-synthesis' is the process of amalgamation of a group of similar studies with the aim of developing an explanation for their findings (Walsh and Downe, J Advanc Nurs 50: 204-211, 2005). A thematic content analysis was conducted on the 15 included full text articles (qualitative and quantitative studies) whereby the original authors' understanding of key concepts in each study was identified and listed in a summary form in the data extraction sheet under "key findings" column. These findings were then juxtaposed to identify homogeneity and dissonance (Walsh and Downe, J Advanc Nurs 50: 204-211, 2005). Homogenous findings were then coded together on a different data extraction table to form a theme. A total of 15 articles met the inclusion criteria and were included in this meta-synthesis;six from the United States, two from Libya, and one each from Turkey, Peru, India, Germany, the United Kingdom, Yemen, and Japan. Six main themes were derived from the included articles: 1-the frequency of pharmaceutical representatives' visits, 2-the perceived ethical acceptability of the interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and physicians, 3-the attitudes held by physicians towards visits by pharmaceutical representatives, 4-their perception of the effect of such visits on prescription patterns, 5-reasons to accept or reject pharmaceutical representatives, and lastly, 6-guidelines. The physicians referred to pharmaceutical representatives as efficient and convenient information resources and were willing to meet them and accept their gifts. It was also evident that most physicians believed that their prescribing would not be influenced by pharmaceutical representatives.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 78 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 1%
Unknown 77 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 13 17%
Researcher 12 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 9%
Other 5 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 6%
Other 17 22%
Unknown 19 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 18%
Business, Management and Accounting 10 13%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 10 13%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 2 3%
Other 18 23%
Unknown 19 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 03 November 2020.
All research outputs
#6,977,357
of 23,577,761 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#159
of 432 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#124,295
of 421,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
#5
of 8 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,761 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 70th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 432 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 10.8. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
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 421,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 70% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 8 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 3 of them.