Norwegian medical students’ attitudes towards the pharmaceutical industry
- 159 Downloads
Whereas there is a considerable body of information on the interaction between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, little is known about the pharmaceutical industry–medical student relationship. We have assessed the extent of contact between Norwegian medical students and the pharmaceutical industry as well as the attitudes of these students towards the pharmaceutical industry.
A self-assessment questionnaire was distributed to fifth- and sixth-year students attending the four medical schools in Norway and to Norwegian medical students attending selected universities abroad.
A total of 65.8% of all eligible students returned a completed questionnaire. Of these, 73.9% had been exposed to various levels of contact with the pharmaceutical industry, but only 17.5% reported having a generally positive attitude towards the industry. The level of exposure did not correlate in students’ attitudes; rather, it correlated positively to a feeling of competence in terms of being able to handle such interactions. A majority of students responded that while they would decline accepting monetary gifts, they would welcome receiving reimbursements for meeting expenses, meals and educational material. Students favoured a practice of full disclosure of potential industry-related conflicts of interest among the university teaching staff. There were considerable differences in the students’ attitudes between universities, suggesting that medical students are prone to influence from university lecturers.
Norwegian medical students are opinionated, critical and curious with respect to pharmaceutical industry relations. This interest can be explored and probably also modified by educational initiatives.
KeywordsGuidelines National survey Pharmaceutical promotion Questionnaire
The authors want to thank The Norwegian University of Science and Technology for financing the project and Professor Stian Lydersen for valuable help with the statistics. The participation from staff and students at the different universities is gratefully acknowledged.
- 1.Lexchin J (1993) Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: what does the literature say? Can Med Assoc J 149(10):1401–1407Google Scholar
- 12.Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, McCurdy FA, Mintz M, Frank J, Lynn DJ, Chao J, Morgenstern BZ, Shore W, Woodard JL (2005) Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey. JAMA 294(9):1034–1042. doi: 10.1001/jama.294.9.1034 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 18.Members of Nmf and Medical Students in Total after University and Country by November 24, 2008 (In Norwegian) In: The Norwegian Medical Association. Available at: http://www.legeforeningen.no/id/146189.0
- 19.(2005) Report from National Educational Meeting, October 20, 2005 (in Norwegian). The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Available at: http://www.ntnu.no/events/dekanmote/2006/Referater/051020ReferatFormoteUtdanning.pdf
- 20.(2005) Dean meeting in Trondheim, December 1–2, 2005 (in Norwegian). In: The Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim. Available at: http://www.ntnu.no/events/dekanmote/2006/minidekanmote/051201ReferatMinidekanmote.pdf
- 21.Agreement between the Pharmaceutical Industry Association and the Norwegian Medical Association regarding Guidelines for Cooperation and Interaction between Physicians, the Norwegian Medical Association and the Pharmaceutical Industry (in Norwegian). December 13, 2004 In: The Norwegian Medical Association. Available at: http://www.legeforeningen.no/index.gan?id=55565
- 22.Tichelaar J, Richir MC, Avis HJ, Scholten HJ, Antonini NF, De Vries TP (2009) Do medical students copy the drug treatment choices of their teachers or do they think for themselves? Eur J Clin Pharmacol. Epub ahead of print. doi: 10.1007/s00228-009-0743-3
- 26.Hodges B (1995) Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: experiences and attitudes of psychiatry residents, interns and clerks. Can Med Assoc J 153(5):553–559Google Scholar