Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jul;16(Suppl 3):S2591-S2594.
doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_247_24. Epub 2024 Jun 7.

Whether Present Era Demand Change in Pharmaceutical Promotional Ways to be More Eco- and Doctor-Friendly? An Observational Study

Spandana Chaudhury  1 , G B Kuldeep  2 , P V Swati  3 , R S Lekshmi  1 , Balaji Manohar  4 , Akriti Mahajan  5 , Shilpa Duseja  6 , Rahul Tiwari  7
Affiliations

Whether Present Era Demand Change in Pharmaceutical Promotional Ways to be More Eco- and Doctor-Friendly? An Observational Study

Spandana Chaudhury et al. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2024 Jul.

Abstract

Aim: Pharmaceutical promotion is the principal aspect of the healthcare system. In this study, we aimed to portray the opinion of doctors and medical representatives (MRs) on conventional pharmaceutical ways (usage of promotional or educational paper materials and physician drug samples) for pharmaceutical promotion.

Materials and methods: In this cross-sectional observational study, data were collected from doctors and MRs across India using self-administered Google forms. Data were analyzed, and results were drawn.

Results: A total of 314 doctors and 272 MRs participated in the study. As per 95.5% of doctors, continuing medical education (CME)/books/online information is the most common and convenient method to update medical knowledge, whereas 67.9% of MRs also think the same. Only 5.5% of doctors prefer paper material provided by pharmaceutical companies to update their knowledge. Most doctors say paper materials provided by pharmaceutical companies contribute less than 25% to product information, rather CME, books, and online information contribute significantly. MRs also think similarly. 66.2% of MRs agree that more than 25% of paper material gets wasted due to non-distribution. 73.2% of doctors and 75.4% of MRs agree that the use of paper materials for product promotion is not cost-effective, even if it contributes to deforestation. Only 51% of doctors use more than 50% of medical samples in patient care and only half of doctors and MRs think expired medical samples are disposed of correctly. 56.1% of doctors and 71.4% of MRs think a significant amount of medical samples are wasted and are hazardous to the environment.

Conclusions: Both doctors and MRs are of the opinion that the conventional method of paper promotion, that is, paper material and drug samples, is not cost-effective and also not eco-friendly. Hence, need to rethink - is there a need to change with time?

Keywords: MRs (medical representatives); Pharmaceutical companies; drug samples; promotional paper materials.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

There are no conflicts of interest.

References

    1. WHO. Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion. Geneva: WHO; 1988.
    1. Bester N, Di Vito-Smith M, McGarry T, Riffkin M, Kaehler S, Pilot R, et al. The effectiveness of an educational brochure as a risk minimization activity to communicate important rare adverse events to health-care professionals. Adv Ther. 2016;33:167–77. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Mintzes B, Fabbri A, Grundy Q, Spurling GKP, Lexchin J, McKenzie JE, et al. Information and promotional strategies by pharmaceutical companies for clinicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD013423.pub2.
    1. Giguère A, Zomahoun HT, Carmichael P-H, Uwizeye CB, Légaré F, Grimshaw JM, et al. Printed educational materials: Effects on professional practice and healthcare outcomes. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 CD004398. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD004398.pub4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lenzen M, Malik A, Li M, Fry J, Weisz H, Pichler PP, et al. The environmental footprint of health care: A global assessment. Lancet Planetary Health. 2020;4:e271–9. doi: 10.1016/S2542-5196(20)30121-2. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources