The opinion of patients at a local South Africa teaching hospital on physician-industry relations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aimed to determine how South African patients at a regional state hospital perceived the practice of physicians accepting gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. The physician-patient relationship is built on trust, with an understanding that the physician will act ethically and in patients' best interests. This trust is violated when physicians make patient management decisions that are motivated by a desire for personal gain. Gift giving is a technique that is commonly used by the pharmaceutical industry to influence physician prescribing and procurement practice.Design: This was an observational, cohort study that used a questionnaire among postoperative patients.Setting and subjects: Written informed consent was obtained from 200 postoperative adult patients at Grey's Hospital, Pietermaritzburg.Outcome measures: Patients' opinions regarding physician-industry relations focused on four main areas: acceptability of gift giving, the monetary value of gifts, patient knowledge of physicians' involvement with the medical industry, and the perceived potential influence of gifts on physicians decision-making.Results: Sixty-two per cent of patients felt that it was unacceptable for physicians to accept a gift from a pharmaceutical company, and 80% believed that doctors were influenced by accepting gifts. Eighty-one per cent of patients preferred to be cared for by a doctor who had no relationship with, or did not accept gifts from, pharmaceutical companies.Conclusion: The majority of patients in this study do not agree with the practice of gift giving, particularly when it led to personal gain for the physicians. Patients believed that when physicians accepted gifts it influenced their decision-making, and indicated that they would prefer to be cared for by physicians without ties to the medical industry.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".