Pharmacy World and Science

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 13–17 | Cite as

Pharmacist-physician co-operation at a regional level

  • A. T. C. Blom
  • A. H. P. Paes
  • A. Bakker
  • C. J. Koopman
  • C. van der Meer
Practice/Case Reports


In the Dutch region of “Betuwe” the hospital pharmacists and community pharmacists together provide short drug letters about new drugs, which are sent bimonthly to all the practising general practitioners (n=83) and medical specialists (n=50) in this region. A survey was conducted among these physicians in order to investigate their opinion about and reported use of the drug letters in comparison with other drug-information sources. The majority of the responding physicians (response rate 68%) was found to read the drug letter frequently and evaluated the drug letter as a useful source of information about drugs, especially its section about the advantages and disadvantages of the new drug compared to other drugs. With respect to the different stages of the drug-adoption process, the drug letter was found to be the most frequently used information source at the decision stage. At the introduction stage the pharmaceutical industry representative seems to be the most frequently used source of information, while at the information stage it is the “Geneesmiddelenbulletin” (Drug Bulletin). The majority of the responding general practitioners reported to participate in local group meetings with pharmacists. However, in only 20% of these group meetings attention is given to the drug letter. Since it is known that written information has only a limited influence on the physician's behaviour, the influence of the “Betuwe Circulaire” may increase when attention is paid to it in the local contacts between pharmacists and physicians.


Choice behavior Drug bulletins Drug information Pharmacists Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee Physicians Referral and consultation 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Paes AHP. Contacts between pharmacists and general practitioners in the Netherlands. J Soc Adm Pharm 1983;1:139–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Paes AHP. Pharmacists and general practioners in consultation? Contacts in primary health care [Apotheker en artsen in overleg?] [Dissertation]. Utrecht: Utrecht University, 1989.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van de Poel GT, Heerkens MEAH, Bergsma J. Prescription patterns of general practitioners [Voorschrijfpatronen in de huisartspraktijk]. Pharm Weekbl 1990;125:979–84.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Paes AHP, Blom AThG. Sources of information for the hospital pharmacist [De informatiebronnen van de ziekenhuisapotheker]. Pharm Weekbl 1988;123:481–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Paes AHP, Blom AThC. Sources of information for the community pharmacist [De informatiebronnen van de openbare apotheker]. Pharm Weekbl 1986;121:1099–105.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Paes AHP, Blom AThG. The general practitioner and drug information sources [De huisarts en zijn informatiebronnen]. Med Contact 1983;38:1520–1.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Miller RR. Prescribing habits of physicians. A review of studies prescribing drugs. Drug Intell Clin Pharm 1974;8:81–91.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hingstman L. Registered numbers of professionals in primary health care [Cijfers uit de registratie van beroepen in de eerstelijns gezondheidszorg]. Utrecht: NIVEL, 1985.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Nelsen E. A study of the validity of the task inventory method of job analysis. Med Care 1975;13:104–13.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Peay MY, Peay ER. Differences among practitioners in patterns of preference for information sources in the adoption of new drugs. Soc Sci Med 1984;18:1019–25.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Evans EC, Haynes B, Birkett NJ, Gilbert JR, Taylor DW, Sacket DL, et al. Does a mailed continuing education program imrove physician performance? JAMA 1986;255:501–4.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schaffner W. Improving antibiotic prescribing in office practice. A controlled trial of three educational methods. JAMA 1983;250:1728–32.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Soumerai SB, McLaughlin Thj, Avorn J. Improving drug prescribing in primary care: a critical analysis of the experimental literature. Milbank Q 1989;67(2):268–317.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM, Zijsling DH. Impact of a drug bulletin on the knowledge, perception of drug utility, and prescribing behavior of physicians. DICP Ann Pharmacother 1990;24:87–93Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Berbatis CG, Maher MJ, Plumridge RJ, Stoelwinder JU, Zubrick SR. Impact of a drug bulletin on prescribing oral analgesics in a teaching hospital. Am J Hosp Pharm 1982;39:98–100.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gehlbach SH, Wilkinson WE, Hammond WE, Clapp NE, Finn AL, Taylor WJ, et al. Improving drug prescribing in a primary care practice. Med Care 1984;22:193–201.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Newton-Syms FAO, Dawson PH, Cooke J, Feely M, Booth TG, Jerwood D, et al. The influence of an academic representative on prescribing by general practitioners. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992;33:69–73.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Soumerai SB, Avorn J. Economic and policy analysis of university-based drug ‘detailing’. Med Care 1986;24:313–31.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Denig P, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Therapeutic decision making of physicians. Pharm Weekbl Sci 1992;14:9–15.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Royal Dutch Association for Advancement of Pharmacy 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. T. C. Blom
    • 1
  • A. H. P. Paes
    • 1
  • A. Bakker
    • 1
  • C. J. Koopman
    • 2
  • C. van der Meer
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PharmacoepidemiologyUtrecht UniversityTB Utrechtthe Netherlands
  2. 2.CM Culemborgthe Netherlands
  3. 3.Pharmacy Hospital RivierenlandWP Tielthe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations