MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157721981 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004880

Legislative, educational, policy and other interventions targeting physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review

2014· review· en· W2157721981 on OpenAlexaff
Lina Alkhaled, Lara A Kahale, Hala Nass, Hneine Brax, Racha Fadlallah, Kamal F. Badr, Elie A. Akl

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObservational studyMedicinePsychological interventionRandomized controlled trialMedical prescriptionGrey literatureMEDLINEFamily medicinePharmaceutical marketingPharmaceutical industryQuality (philosophy)NursingPharmacologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to systematically review the effects of interventions targeting practising physicians' interactions with pharmaceutical companies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included observational studies, non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) and RCTs evaluating legislative, educational, policy or other interventions targeting the interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. DATA SOURCES: The search strategy included an electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two reviewers performed duplicate and independent study selection, data abstraction and assessment of risk of bias. APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS: We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. We summarised the findings narratively because the nature of the data did not allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology. RESULTS: Of 11 189 identified citations, one RCT and three observational studies met the eligibility criteria. All four studies specifically targeted one type of interaction with pharmaceutical companies, that is, interactions with drug representatives. The RCT provided moderate quality evidence of no effect of a 'collaborative approach' between the pharmaceutical industry and a health authority. The three observational studies provided low quality evidence suggesting a positive effect of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies (by restricting free samples, promotional material, and meetings with pharmaceutical company representatives) on prescription behaviour. LIMITATIONS: We identified too few studies to allow strong conclusions. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests a potential impact of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and drug representatives on physicians' prescription behaviour. We found no evidence concerning interventions affecting other types of interaction with pharmaceutical companies.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.570
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.735
GPT teacher head0.702
Teacher spread0.033 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations32
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207