Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Meals and Physician Prescribing Patterns for Medicare Beneficiaries

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#8 of 2,436)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
125 news outlets
blogs
14 blogs
twitter
936 tweeters
facebook
37 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
66 Mendeley
Title
Pharmaceutical Industry–Sponsored Meals and Physician Prescribing Patterns for Medicare Beneficiaries
Published in
JAMA Internal Medicine, June 2016
DOI 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.2765
Pubmed ID
Authors

Colette DeJong, Thomas Aguilar, Chien-Wen Tseng, Grace A. Lin, W. John Boscardin, R. Adams Dudley, DeJong, Colette, Aguilar, Thomas, Tseng, Chien-Wen, Lin, Grace A, Boscardin, W John, Dudley, R Adams

Abstract

The association between industry payments to physicians and prescribing rates of the brand-name medications that are being promoted is controversial. In the United States, industry payment data and Medicare prescribing records recently became publicly available. To study the association between physicians' receipt of industry-sponsored meals, which account for roughly 80% of the total number of industry payments, and rates of prescribing the promoted drug to Medicare beneficiaries. Cross-sectional analysis of industry payment data from the federal Open Payments Program for August 1 through December 31, 2013, and prescribing data for individual physicians from Medicare Part D, for all of 2013. Participants were physicians who wrote Medicare prescriptions in any of 4 drug classes: statins, cardioselective β-blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers (ACE inhibitors and ARBs), and selective serotonin and serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs and SNRIs). We identified physicians who received industry-sponsored meals promoting the most-prescribed brand-name drug in each class (rosuvastatin, nebivolol, olmesartan, and desvenlafaxine, respectively). Data analysis was performed from August 20, 2015, to December 15, 2015. Receipt of an industry-sponsored meal promoting the drug of interest. Prescribing rates of promoted drugs compared with alternatives in the same class, after adjustment for physician prescribing volume, demographic characteristics, specialty, and practice setting. A total of 279 669 physicians received 63 524 payments associated with the 4 target drugs. Ninety-five percent of payments were meals, with a mean value of less than $20. Rosuvastatin represented 8.8% (SD, 9.9%) of statin prescriptions; nebivolol represented 3.3% (7.4%) of cardioselective β-blocker prescriptions; olmesartan represented 1.6% (3.9%) of ACE inhibitor and ARB prescriptions; and desvenlafaxine represented 0.6% (2.6%) of SSRI and SNRI prescriptions. Physicians who received a single meal promoting the drug of interest had higher rates of prescribing rosuvastatin over other statins (odds ratio [OR], 1.18; 95% CI, 1.17-1.18), nebivolol over other β-blockers (OR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.69-1.72), olmesartan over other ACE inhibitors and ARBs (OR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.51-1.53), and desvenlafaxine over other SSRIs and SNRIs (OR, 2.18; 95% CI, 2.13-2.23). Receipt of additional meals and receipt of meals costing more than $20 were associated with higher relative prescribing rates. Receipt of industry-sponsored meals was associated with an increased rate of prescribing the brand-name medication that was being promoted. The findings represent an association, not a cause-and-effect relationship.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 936 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 66 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Japan 2 3%
Brazil 1 2%
United States 1 2%
Unknown 62 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 16 24%
Other 13 20%
Researcher 8 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Other 16 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 58%
Linguistics 8 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Business, Management and Accounting 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Other 6 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1777. 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 15 March 2017.
All research outputs
#323
of 7,424,936 outputs
Outputs from JAMA Internal Medicine
#8
of 2,436 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#31
of 257,020 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA Internal Medicine
#3
of 164 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 7,424,936 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,436 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 101.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% 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 257,020 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 164 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.