The European pharmaceutical industry: coming to a screen near you?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The European Commission Pharmaceuticals Unit is currently developing a legal proposal to increase the public provision of information about prescription medicines. Their preliminary proposal would achieve this by permitting pharmaceutical companies to provide unsolicited information about their prescription-only products directly to the public via the mass-media.1 The permitted channels of dissemination would include television, radio and print media, as well as standalone products distributed directly or via healthcare professionals. The stated intention of this controversial proposal is to meet a public need for high quality, reliable information about medications. Legislative debate in this area is not new. In 2002, the European Parliament debated a proposed five-year pilot scheme of mass-media advertising limited to drugs for diabetes, asthma and AIDS. The proposal was rejected by 494 votes to 42.2 Currently, the USA and New Zealand are the only developed countries that permit direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) of prescription-only medications; it is a contentious issue in both.3,4 The preliminary proposal insists that our ban on advertising should be maintained, instead forwarding a suggestion that the pharmaceutical industry be able to disseminate ‘non-promotional information’. Herein lies the conundrum, as the distinction between ‘advertising’ and mass-provision of unsolicited information by industry is not immediately obvious. Indeed, despite widespread agreement that such a distinction is absolutely crucial to the current proposal, neither the proposer nor any stakeholder has yet offered a clear means to achieve this.5 Opponents therefore fear that permitting such legislation would be tantamount to allowing advertising in all but name.6 The importance of this debate cannot be underestimated: widespread information dissemination has the potential to significantly impact the public's understanding of health, disease and medications, and to alter the nature of the doctor-patient relationship. Whilst this debate may be relatively new to Europeans, it is both long-standing and familiar in North America and Australasia. We are therefore fortunate to have the benefit of others' experiences. Indeed, we are urged to learn from these experiences by physicians in New Zealand. They fear that Europe's current trajectory represents a ‘slippery slope’ to their own situation in which drug advertising is omnipresent, though unpopular with doctors and with patient groups.7 Within this article we draw on international experience to contextualize and consider the potential European policy. We summarize the discourse that surrounds DTCA in the USA and New Zealand and present a taxonomic framework. Starting from a discussion of Canada's experience, we discuss the distinction between information and advertising. We consider how Europe could draw all of this together to carve its own path towards world-class provision of patient-centred information.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,013 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,006 |
| Communication savante | 0,024 | 0,024 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,051 | 0,014 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,030 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».