Volume 202 - Issue 3
Pharmaceutical sales strategies and sponsorship
Authors: Elizabeth Ann Sturgiss, Kirsty Douglas and Stephen Craig Trumble
Med J Aust 2015; 202 (3): 131. || doi: 10.5694/mja14.01525
Published online: 16 February 2015
Published online: 16 February 2015
Drug company marketing strategies are not benign
To the Editor: It is with dismay that we read in MJA InSight Morton's dismissal of the international “No Advertising Please” campaign, citing Australian Medical Association (AMA) policy.1
Drug company sales representatives and their sales techniques influence doctors. Morton dismisses the 2010 systematic review2 through selective quoting of the editorial position. In fact, the editors supported the conclusion of the systematic review that there is no evidence of improvement and some evidence of adverse consequences from marketing. There is an abundance of evidence in the behavioural science literature on the impact of marketing,3-5 and there is evidence that marketers may not make doctors aware of the risks of their products.6
The influence of doctors who are paid by pharmaceutical companies to present research at conferences and workshops is also cause for concern. If we, as a medical community, decline to see sales representatives, will we see an increase in the funding for doctors to present to other doctors on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry?
Many, including AMA leaders, suggest we should continue in the current fashion. We dispute this.
We have the following practical suggestions:
- front-line clinical doctors, including busy general practitioners, should use the up-to-date, evidence-based information provided by the National Prescribing Service;
- doctors should obtain further information from authoritative evidence-based clinical guidelines available online, such as “Therapeutic Guidelines”;
- for future research funding, we advocate structures that more clearly separate the financially vested company from the researchers;
- conflict of interest statements should be provided beside the authors' names in conference abstract lists; and
- workshops should provide written disclosure to participants of the presenting doctors' current and previous funding sources.
We support the “No Advertising Please” campaign. We also support further consideration of the insidious influence of pharmaceutical companies at conferences and workshops through their sponsorship of doctors.
Competing interests
No relevant disclosures.
Acknowledgements
We thank David Harley, Christine Phillips, Mieke van Driel and Claire Harrison for intellectual input and support.
References
- Morton B. Brian Morton: faulty pledge. MJA InSight 2014; 20 Oct. https://www.mja.com.au/insight/2014/39/brian-morton-faulty-pledge (accessed Jan 2015).
- Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, et al. Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians' prescribing: a systematic review. PLOS Med 2010; 7: e1000352. _Ref410385401
- Cialdini R. Influence: the psychology of persuasion. Revised ed. New York: HarperBusiness, 2007. _Ref410385454
- Thaler RH, Sunstein CR. Nudge: improving decisions about health, wealth and happiness. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 2008. 4
- Ariely D. Predictably irrational: the hidden forces that shape our decisions. London: HarperCollins, 2008. _Ref410385457
- Mintzes B, Lexchin J, Sutherland JM, et al. Pharmaceutical sales representatives and patient safety: a comparative prospective study of information quality in Canada, France and the United States. J Gen Intern Med 2013; 28: 1368-1375. _Ref410385516