Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 22, Issue 2, pp 184–190 | Cite as

Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship

  • Susan Chimonas
  • Troyen A. Brennan
  • David J. Rothman
Original Article

Abstract

Background

Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction.

Objective

To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago.

Measurements

Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care.

Results

Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients.

Conclusions

Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.

Key words

physician behavior professionalism social science qualitative research health policy 

References

  1. 1.
    Rodwin MA. Medicine, Money, and Morals: Physicians’ Conflict of Interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Murray T. Conflict of interest in the professions. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:1835–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dana J, Lowenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290(2):252–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Consumers Union. Requiring Drug Companies to Disclose Marketing Expenditures to Physicians. Available at http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/001813indiv.html. Accessed April 21, 2006.
  5. 5.
    Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283:373–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lexchin J. Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: What does the literature say? Can Med Assoc J. 1993; 149:1401–7.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pear R. Drug industry is told to stop gifts to doctors. The New York Times. October 1, 2002;A1.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chimonas S, Rothman DJ. New federal guidelines for physician–pharmaceutical industry relations: the politics of policy formation. Health Aff. 2005;24,4:949–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Financial conflicts of interest in physician relationships with the pharmaceutical industry: Self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351:1891–1900.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Anderson T. “Drug launches and the impact of pharmaceutical promotion on physician treatment decisions.” Report presented at Prudential Financial/ImpactRx Joint Industry Conference, Omni Berkshire Place, New York, NY, June 20, 2003. Available at http://www.impactrx.com/pdfs/Prudential_Financial_ImpactRx_Joint_Industry_Conference.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2005.
  11. 11.
    Medical Professionalism Project. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243–46.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Brett AS, Burr W, Moloo J. Are gifts from pharmaceutical companies ethically problematic? A survey of physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163:2213–18.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Reeder M, Dougherty J, White L. Pharmaceutical representatives and emergency medicine residents: a national survey. Ann Emerg Med. 1993; 22:1593–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hodges B. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: experiences and attitudes of psychiatry residents, interns, and clerks. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;153:553–9.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sergeant M, Hodgetts P, Godwin M, Walker D, McHenry P. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: a survey of family medicine residents in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;155:1243–8.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    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
  17. 17.
    Banks J, Mainous A. Attitudes of medical school faculty toward gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Acad Med. 1992;67:610–12.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Keim S, Sanders A, Witzke D, Dyne P, Fulginiti J. Beliefs and practices of emergency medicine faculty and residents regarding professional interactions with the biomedical industry. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:1576–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Steinman M, Shlipak M, McPhee S. Of principles and pens: attitudes and practices of medicine house staff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. Am J Med. 2001;110:551–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Madhavan S, Amonkar M, Elliott D, Burke K, Gore P. The gift relationship between pharmaceutical companies and physicians: an exploratory survey of physicians. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997;22:207–15.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Festinger L, Riecken H, Schachter S. When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis, MN: Lund Press; 1956.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Morgan D. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1997.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    American Medical Association. “Gifts to physicians from industry.” JAMA 1991;265:501.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “PhRMA code on interactions with healthcare professionals.” Available at http://www.phrma.org/files/PhRMA%20code.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2006.
  26. 26.
    Office of the Inspector General. Compliance program guidance for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Fed Regist. 2003;68,86:23731–43.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Carroll R. “Cognitive dissonance.” The Skeptic’s Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Coyle S. Physician–industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:396–402.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295,4:429–33.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hensley S. “As Drug Bill Soars, Some Doctors Get an ‘Unsales’ Pitch.” The Wall Street Journal. March 13, 2006;A1.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schneider JA, Arora V, Kasza K, Van Harrison R, Humphrey H. Residents’ perceptions over time of pharmaceutical industry: interactions and gifts and the effect of an educational intervention. Acad Med. 2006;81(7):595–602.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Appleby J. “Sales pitch: Drug firms use perks to push pills.” USA Today. May 16, 2001;B1.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    California Senate Bill 1765, Chapter 927, September 2004. Available at http://www.venable.com/docs/pubs/1204.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2006.
  34. 34.
    Allen D. “Drug companies woo Vermont doctors.” The Barre Montpelier Times (Argus and Rutland Herald). May 29, 2005: A1, A6.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Vermont Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Gift Disclosure Law (33 V.S.A. § 2005). Available at http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=177. Accessed August 23, 2005.
  36. 36.
    Arnold & Porter, LLP. “Pharmaceutical Companies Face New State Marketing Disclosure Laws. Arnold & Porter Update.” Available at http://www.arnoldporter.com/pubs/files/Pharma_Marketing_Disclosure_Laws.PDF. Accessed March 17, 2006.

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Susan Chimonas
    • 1
  • Troyen A. Brennan
    • 2
  • David J. Rothman
    • 1
  1. 1.Center on Medicine as a ProfessionColumbia UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Aetna, Inc.HartfordUSA

Personalised recommendations