MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096754964 · doi:10.1111/bcp.14636

“There are ways … drug companies will get into DTC decisions”: How Australian drug and therapeutics committees address pharmaceutical industry influence

2020· article· en· W3096754964 on OpenAlexaff
Lisa Parker, Alexandra Bennett, Barbara Mintzes, Quinn Grundy, Alice Fabbri, Emily A. Karanges, Lisa Bero

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Health and Medical Research Council
KeywordsDrugPharmaceutical industryDrug industryDrug approvalBusinessPharmacologyMedicineRisk analysis (engineering)Engineering ethicsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIMS: One tool for protecting quality use of medicines in hospitals is a drug and therapeutics committee (DTC) that oversees medicines availability. Pharmaceutical industry marketing to prescribers is associated with less appropriate prescribing and increased costs. There is little data on decision-making practices of DTCs so it is unknown whether or how they might be vulnerable to pharmaceutical industry influence. This project explores DTC decision-making with a focus on how pharmaceutical industry influence on access and use of medicines is identified and managed. METHODS: We used a qualitative methodology with individual interviews of 29 participants who were current or recent members of public hospital DTCs across New South Wales, Australia. Participants included medical, pharmacy and nursing staff and 1 citizen. Committees were linked to specific hospitals or regions, and some were affiliated with paediatric, neonatal, rural or mental health services. RESULTS: Drug committee processes for oversight of medicines in public hospitals are vulnerable to pharmaceutical industry influence at several points. Applications for formulary additions are sometimes initiated and completed by company representatives. Conflict of interest disclosures among applicants and committee members may be incomplete. In some institutions, medicines are available from pharmaceutical companies without committee review, including through free samples and industry-supported medicines access programmes. Participants noticed the presence and impact of pharmaceutical company marketing activities to local clinicians, resulting in increased prescriber demand for products. CONCLUSION: Improved DTC practices and review of hospital policies concerning pharmaceutical marketing activities might preserve the independence of evidence-based decision-making for safe, cost-effective prescribing.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.161
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.221
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1610.221
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0290.033
Scholarly communication0.0230.016
Open science0.0050.023
Research integrity0.0100.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.497
GPT teacher head0.565
Teacher spread0.069 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicPharmaceutical industry and healthcareFrench-language works237,207