The European pharmaceutical industry: coming to a screen near you?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.051 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.030 | 0.009 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".