MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W279807983

Direct-to-Consumer Advertising for Prescription Drugs in Canada: Beyond Good or Evil

2005· article· en· W279807983 sur OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Catherine Régis

Notice bibliographique

RevueHealth law review · 2005
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
ThématiquePharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésLegislationDirect-to-consumer advertisingMedical prescriptionGovernment (linguistics)Health careBusinessOrder (exchange)AdvertisingPublic relationsPolitical scienceLawMedicineNursing
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Canadians have always had a hard time reconciling health and mercantilism. The publicly-funded system is, in part, responsible for nourishing this collective position, as Canadians rarely have to pay physicians and hospitals directly for the health care and services they receive. Direct-to-Consumer-Advertising (DTCA) is a particularly controversial issue for Canadians, as it not only involves commercial interests in health, but also allows for the appealing possibility of greater involvement for patients in decisions related to their health. (1) DTCA for prescription drugs is, in principle, forbidden in Canada. Pharmaceutical companies are limited to aiming their advertisement solely to health professionals. However, discussion surrounding the DTCA issue remains relevant, as the federal government has indicated its interest in revising the Food and Drug Act. Key changes with respect to the of health care products are being seriously considered, notably regarding the introduction of DTCA for prescription drugs. (2) Even though the legislation restricts most DTCA, the truth is that Canadians, whether they want to be or not, are aware of it. The current loopholes in Canadian legislation and policies, combined with the fact that from the United States reaches Canada via magazines, television and the Internet, make DTCA an already-existing reality for Canadians (3). Therefore, in this article I propose stepping away from the traditional binary debate about whether DTCA is good or not in order to focus on some practical issues and solutions. I will first discuss the legislation and policies surrounding DTCA in Canada. Secondly, I will underline the lack of involvement by certain key actors in the debate. Finally, I will propose some potential solutions (should DTCA be further implemented in Canada) that would notably provide for greater involvement of these actors. The Status of DTCA Under Canadian Law The responsibility for interpreting and enforcing drug-advertising regulations lies with Health Canada. It seems that Canada, through current Canadian law on the subject, has put its foot in the door with respect to DTCA, but now doesn't know if it should step in or slam the door shut again. While DTCA is allowed for non-prescription drugs, it is, in principle, restricted for prescription drugs. (4) The Canadian Food and Drugs Act mentions that, No person shall advertise any food, drug, cosmetic or device to the general public as a treatment, preventive or cure for any of the diseases, disorders or abnormal physical states [...]. (5) The Act defines advertisement as including any representation by any means whatsoever for the purpose of directly or indirectly promoting the sale or disposal of any food, drug, cosmetic or device. (6) Whereas the applicable regulation seems quite broad on the definition of advertisement, a policy statement made by Health Canada in 1996 indicated a distinction between and information dissemination. (7) This statement had the impact of allowing help-seeking advertisement, which describes the condition the drug treats, but not the name, price, or quantity. (8) As well, reminder advertisement, which provides the name, price, or quantity of the drug without stating its use, is permitted in Canada. (9) The type of advertisement that is presently not allowed in Canada is that which links both categories of information; that is, the products' names and their specific therapeutic claims. This last type is called product claim and is permitted in the United States. However, the current capacity of Health Canada to effectively restrict real advertising remains uncertain. Various actors have expressed serious doubts about the ability of Health Canada to deal with the offenders. (10) As an illustration, it took Health Canada six months to inform Wyeth-Ayerst Canada of its contravention of the Food and Drug Regulations. …

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,005
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Commentaire · Signal consensuel: Commentaire
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,128
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,926

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0050,014
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,004
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0170,014
Communication savante0,0190,004
Science ouverte0,0020,003
Intégrité de la recherche0,0070,009
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0060,000

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,334
Tête enseignante GPT0,542
Écart entre enseignants0,207 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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 découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreCommentaire

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations2
Publié2005
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueHealth law reviewMême sujetPharmaceutical industry and healthcareTravaux en français237 207