Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 28, Issue 8, pp 1064–1071 | Cite as

Changing Interactions Between Physician Trainees and the Pharmaceutical Industry: A National Survey

  • Kirsten E. Austad
  • Jerry Avorn
  • Jessica M. Franklin
  • Mary K. Kowal
  • Eric G. Campbell
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim
Original Research

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, medical school policies limit pharmaceutical representatives’ access to students and gifts from drugmakers, but little is known about how these policies affect student attitudes toward industry.

OBJECTIVE

To assess interactions between trainees and the pharmaceutical industry, and to determine whether learning environment characteristics influence students’ practices and attitudes.

DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS

We conducted a cross-sectional survey with a nationally-representative sample of first- and fourth-year medical students and third-year residents, stratified by medical school, including ≥ 14 randomly selected trainees at each level per school.

MAIN MEASURES

We measured frequency of industry interactions and attitudes regarding how such interactions affect medical training and the profession. Chi-squared tests assessed bivariate linear trend, and hierarchical logistic regression models were fitted to assess associations between trainees’ attitudes and their schools’ National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding levels and American Medical Student Association (AMSA) PharmFree Scorecard grades reflecting industry-related conflict of interest policies.

KEY RESULTS

Among 1,610 student (49.3 % response rate) and 739 resident (43.1 %) respondents, industry-sponsored gifts were common, rising from 33.0 % (first-year students) to 56.8 % (fourth-year students) and 54 % (residents) (p < 0.001). These gifts included meals outside the hospital (reported by 5 % first-year students, 13.4 % fourth-year students, 27.5 % residents (p < 0.001)) and free drug samples (reported by 7.4 % first-year students, 14.1 % fourth-year students, 14.3 % residents (p < 0.001)). The perception that industry interactions lead to bias was prevalent, but the belief that physicians receive valuable education through these interactions increased (64.1 % to 67.5 % to 79.8 %, p < 0.001). Students in schools receiving more NIH funding reported industry gifts less often (OR = 0.51, 95 % CI: 0.38–0.68, p < 0.001), but the strength of institutional conflict of interest policies was not associated with this variable.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite recent policy changes, a substantial number of trainees continue to receive gifts from pharmaceutical representatives. We found no relation between these outcomes and a school’s policies concerning interactions with industry.

KEY WORDS

pharmaceutical industry undergraduate medical education drug promotion conflict of interest 

Supplementary material

11606_2013_2361_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (105 kb)
ESM 1(PDF 105 kb)

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    Brody H. Pharmaceutical industry financial support for medical education: benefit, or undue influence? J Law Med Ethics. 2009;37(3):451–460.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Campbell EG, Regan S, Gruen RL, Ferris TG, Rao SR, Cleary PD, Blumenthal D. Professionalism in medicine: results of a national survey of physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147(11):795–802.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Steinbrook R. Future directions in industry funding of continuing medical education. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(3):257–258.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Avorn J, Choudhry NK. Funding for medical education: maintaining a healthy separation from industry. Circulation. 2010;121(20):2228–2234.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S, Rao SR, Moy B, Feibelmann S, Goold SD. Institutional academic industry relationships. JAMA. 2007;298(15):1779–1786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zipkin DA, Steinman MA. Interactions between pharmaceutical representatives and doctors in training. A thematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2005;20(8):777–786.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitz M, Homna D, Reddy S, Griffith C, Baker E, et al. The hidden curriculum: medical students’ changing opinions toward the pharmaceutical industry. Acad Med. 2007;82:S1–S3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellin M, McCarthy S, Drevlow L, Pierach C. Medical students’ exposure to pharmaceutical industry marketing: a survey at one U.S. medical school. Acad Med. 2004;79:1041–1045.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hyman P, Hochman M, Shaw J, Steinman M. Attitudes of preclinical and clinical medical students toward interactions with the pharmaceutical industry. Acad Med. 2007;82:94–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fein E, Vermillion M, Uijtdehaag S. Pre-clinical medical students’ exposure to and attitudes toward pharmaceutical industry marketing. Med Educ. Online 2007;12. Available at: http://www.med-ed-online.net/index.php/meo/article/viewArticle/4465.
  11. 11.
    Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, McCurdy FA, Mintz M, Frank J, Lynn DJ, Chao J, Morgenstern BZ, Shore W, Woodard JL. Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1034–1042.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Soyk C, Pfefferkorn B, McBride P, Rieselbach R. Medical student exposure to and attitudes about pharmaceutical companies. WMJ. 2010;109(3):142–148.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Austad KE, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS. Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about the pharmaceutical industry: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2011;8(5):e1001037.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283(3):373–380.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bowman MA, Pearle DL. Changes in drug prescribing patterns related to commercial company funding of continuing medical education. J Contin Educ Health Prof. 1988;8:13–20.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sondergaard J, Vach K, Kragstrup J, Andersen M. Impact of pharmaceutical representative visits on GPs’ drug preferences. Fam Pract. 2009;26:204–209.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Institute of Medicine. Conflict of interest in medical research, education, and practice. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press; 2009.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Association of American Medical Colleges. Industry funding of medical education: report of an AAMC task force. June 2008. Available at: https://members.aamc.org/eweb/upload/Industry%20Funding%20of%20Medical%20Education.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013.
  19. 19.
    Stanford School of Medicine. New policy on continuing medical education. 19 Aug 2008. Available at: http://med.stanford.edu/coi/documents/deanpizzo_cmeletter.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013.
  20. 20.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA code on interactions with healthcare professionals. July 2008. Available at: http://www.phrma.org/sites/default/files/369/phrma_marketing_code_2008-1.pdf . Accessed 14 Jan 2013.
  21. 21.
    University of Iowa health care conflict of interests and conflict of commitment policy regarding interactions with industry. 20 January 2009. Available at: http://www.healthcare.uiowa.edu/cme/planning/documents/FinalCOIPolicy.pdf. Accessed 14 Jan 2013.
  22. 22.
    Fugh-Berman A, Brown SR, Trippett R, Bell AM, Clark P, Fleg A, Siwek J. Closing the door on pharma? A national survey of family medicine residencies regarding industry interactions. Acad Med. 2011;86(5):649–654.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Kao AC, Braddock C 3rd, Clay M, Elliott D, Epstein SK, Filstead W, Hotze T, May W, Reenan J. Effect of educational interventions and medical school policies on medical students’ attitudes toward pharmaceutical marketing practices: a multi-institutional study. Acad Med. 2011;86(11):1454–1462.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Weissman JS, Betancourt J, Campbell EG, Park ER, Kim M, Clarridge B, Blumenthal D, Lee KC, Maina AW. Resident physicians' preparedness to provide cross-cultural care. JAMA. 2005;294(9):1058–1067.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    US News. Best medical schools: research. 2011. Available at: http://grad-schools.usnews.rankingsandreviews.com/best-graduate-schools/top-medical-schools/research-rankings. Accessed 14 Jan 2013.
  26. 26.
    American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard definitions: final dispositions of case codes and outcome rates for surveys. 2009. Available at: http://www.aapor.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Standard_Definitions1&Template=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=1814. Accessed 14 Jan 2013.
  27. 27.
    Johnson TP, Wislar JS. Response rates and nonresponse errors in surveys. JAMA. 2012;307(17):1805–1806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kesselheim AS, Mello MM, Studdert DM. Strategies and practices in off-label marketing of pharmaceuticals: a retrospective analysis of whistleblower complaints. PLoS Med. 2011;8(4):e1000431.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Mullan F, Chen C, Petterson S, Kolsky G, Spagnola M. The social mission of medical education: ranking the schools. Ann Intern Med. 2010;152(12):804–811.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Chimonas S, Brennan TA, Rothman DJ. Physicians and drug representatives: exploring the dynamics of the relationship. J Gen Intern Med. 2007;22(2):184–190.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Chren M-M, Landefeld CS. Physicians’ behavior and their interactions with drug companies: a controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA. 1994;271:684–689.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Manchanda P, Honka E. The effects and role of direct-to-physician marketing in the pharmaceutical industry: an integrative review. Yale J Health Policy Law Ethics. 2005;5:785–812.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Avorn J, Chen M, Hartley R. Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. Am J Med. 1982;73(1):4–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Agrawal S, Saluja I, Kaczorowski J. A prospective before-and-after trial of an educational intervention about pharmaceutical marketing. Acad Med. 2004;79:1046–1050.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Austad KE, Kesselheim AS. Conflict of interest disclosure in early medical education: should medical students stay in the dark? JAMA. 2011;306:991–992.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Asch DA, Jedrziewski MK, Christakis NA. Response rates to mail surveys published in medical journals. J Clin Epidemiol. 1997;50(10):1129–1136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kirsten E. Austad
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jerry Avorn
    • 1
  • Jessica M. Franklin
    • 1
  • Mary K. Kowal
    • 1
  • Eric G. Campbell
    • 3
  • Aaron S. Kesselheim
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of MedicineBrigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA
  2. 2.Edmond J. Safra Center for EthicsHarvard UniversityCambridgeUSA
  3. 3.Mongan Institute for Health PolicyMassachusetts General Hospital and Harvard Medical SchoolBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations