Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 8, Issue 3, pp 130–134 | Cite as

The effect on resident attitudes of regulatory policies regarding pharmaceutical representative activities

  • Gregory L. Brotzman
  • David H. Mark
Original Articles


Objective: To determine the effect on resident attitudes of policies regarding pharmaceutical representative interactions with residents.

Design: Cross-sectional survey.

Setting: National sample of U.S. family medicine residencies.

Participants: Three hundred seventy-eight residents from 14 randomly selected programs. Seven programs had written policies and restrictions (restricted programs), and seven had no such restriction or guideline (free programs).

Measurements and main results: The authors assessed resident attitudes regarding the perception of benefit from pharmaceutical representative activities, the usefulness of various sources of drug information, and the appropriateness of accepting gifts from a pharmaceutical representative. There were 265/378 respondents (70% response rate). Residents from restricted programs reported fewer benefits from pharmaceutical representative interactions and were less likely to feel that acceptance of gifts was appropriate. The amount of exposure to pharmaceutical representatives was positively correlated with perceived benefit and negatively correlated with ratings of appropriateness of gift acceptance.

Conclusion: Regulatory policies can influence resident attitudes and perceptions. Training programs should develop written policies to help guide resident-pharmaceutical representative interactions.

Key words

residency education primary care pharmaceutical industry ethics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Scarpinato L. Pharmaceutical representatives (letter). J Gen Intern Med. 1991;6:181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    American College of Physicians. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:624–6.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Miller K, Barza M, Curtis L, et al. Undesirable marketing practices in the pharmaceutical industry. N Engl J Med. 1985;313:54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mick T. Pharmaceutical funding and medical students. JAMA. 1991;265:659, 662–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Chren M, Landefeld S, Murray T. Doctors, drug companies, and gifts. JAMA. 1989;262:3448–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Page L. Profession, feds tighten lid on gifts. Am Med News. 1991;Oct 28:1, 26–27.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs of the American Medical Association. Gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 1991;265:501.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lurie N, Rich EC, Simpson DE, et al. Pharmaceutical representatives in academic medical centers: interaction with faculty and housestaff. J Gen Intern Med. 1990;5:240–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    McKinney WP, Schiedermayer DL, Lurie N, Simpson DE, Goodman JL, Rich EC. Attitudes of internal medicine faculty and residents toward professional interaction with pharmaceutical sales representatives. JAMA. 1990;264:1693–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shaughnessy AF. Drug promotion in a family medicine training center. JAMA. 1988;260:926.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Brotzman GL, Mark DH. Policies regulating the activities of pharmaceutical representatives in residency programs. J Fam Pract. 1992;34:54–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gregory L. Brotzman
    • 1
  • David H. Mark
    • 2
  1. 1.the Department of Family and Community Medicine—Columbia ProgramMedical College of WisconsinMilwaukee
  2. 2.the Department of Family and Community Medicine (DHM)Medical College of WisconsinMilwaukee

Personalised recommendations