Abstract
Background
Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction.
Objective
To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago.
Measurements
Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care.
Results
Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients.
Conclusions
Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Rodwin MA. Medicine, Money, and Morals: Physicians’ Conflict of Interest. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993.
Murray T. Conflict of interest in the professions. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:1835–6.
Dana J, Lowenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290(2):252–5.
Consumers Union. Requiring Drug Companies to Disclose Marketing Expenditures to Physicians. Available at http://www.consumersunion.org/campaigns/learn_more/001813indiv.html. Accessed April 21, 2006.
Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000;283:373–80.
Lexchin J. Interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: What does the literature say? Can Med Assoc J. 1993; 149:1401–7.
Pear R. Drug industry is told to stop gifts to doctors. The New York Times. October 1, 2002;A1.
Chimonas S, Rothman DJ. New federal guidelines for physician–pharmaceutical industry relations: the politics of policy formation. Health Aff. 2005;24,4:949–60.
Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA. Financial conflicts of interest in physician relationships with the pharmaceutical industry: Self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351:1891–1900.
Anderson T. “Drug launches and the impact of pharmaceutical promotion on physician treatment decisions.” Report presented at Prudential Financial/ImpactRx Joint Industry Conference, Omni Berkshire Place, New York, NY, June 20, 2003. Available at http://www.impactrx.com/pdfs/Prudential_Financial_ImpactRx_Joint_Industry_Conference.pdf. Accessed August 23, 2005.
Medical Professionalism Project. Medical professionalism in the new millennium: a physician charter. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:243–46.
Brett AS, Burr W, Moloo J. Are gifts from pharmaceutical companies ethically problematic? A survey of physicians. Arch Intern Med. 2003; 163:2213–18.
Reeder M, Dougherty J, White L. Pharmaceutical representatives and emergency medicine residents: a national survey. Ann Emerg Med. 1993; 22:1593–6.
Hodges B. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: experiences and attitudes of psychiatry residents, interns, and clerks. Can Med Assoc J. 1995;153:553–9.
Sergeant M, Hodgetts P, Godwin M, Walker D, McHenry P. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: a survey of family medicine residents in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J. 1996;155:1243–8.
McKinney WP, Schiedermayer DL, Lurie N, Simpson DE, Goodman JL, Rich, EC. Attitudes of internal medicine faculty and residents toward professional interaction with pharmaceutical sales representatives. JAMA. 1990;264:1693–7.
Banks J, Mainous A. Attitudes of medical school faculty toward gifts from the pharmaceutical industry. Acad Med. 1992;67:610–12.
Keim S, Sanders A, Witzke D, Dyne P, Fulginiti J. Beliefs and practices of emergency medicine faculty and residents regarding professional interactions with the biomedical industry. Ann Emerg Med. 1993;22:1576–81.
Steinman M, Shlipak M, McPhee S. Of principles and pens: attitudes and practices of medicine house staff toward pharmaceutical industry promotions. Am J Med. 2001;110:551–7.
Madhavan S, Amonkar M, Elliott D, Burke K, Gore P. The gift relationship between pharmaceutical companies and physicians: an exploratory survey of physicians. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997;22:207–15.
Festinger L, Riecken H, Schachter S. When Prophecy Fails. Minneapolis, MN: Lund Press; 1956.
Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 1957.
Morgan D. Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. 2nd edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 1997.
American Medical Association. “Gifts to physicians from industry.” JAMA 1991;265:501.
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. “PhRMA code on interactions with healthcare professionals.” Available at http://www.phrma.org/files/PhRMA%20code.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2006.
Office of the Inspector General. Compliance program guidance for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Fed Regist. 2003;68,86:23731–43.
Carroll R. “Cognitive dissonance.” The Skeptic’s Dictionary: A Collection of Strange Beliefs, Amusing Deceptions, and Dangerous Delusions. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons; 2003.
Coyle S. Physician–industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:396–402.
Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al. Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: A policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA. 2006;295,4:429–33.
Hensley S. “As Drug Bill Soars, Some Doctors Get an ‘Unsales’ Pitch.” The Wall Street Journal. March 13, 2006;A1.
Schneider JA, Arora V, Kasza K, Van Harrison R, Humphrey H. Residents’ perceptions over time of pharmaceutical industry: interactions and gifts and the effect of an educational intervention. Acad Med. 2006;81(7):595–602.
Appleby J. “Sales pitch: Drug firms use perks to push pills.” USA Today. May 16, 2001;B1.
California Senate Bill 1765, Chapter 927, September 2004. Available at http://www.venable.com/docs/pubs/1204.pdf. Accessed December 8, 2006.
Allen D. “Drug companies woo Vermont doctors.” The Barre Montpelier Times (Argus and Rutland Herald). May 29, 2005: A1, A6.
Vermont Pharmaceutical Manufacturer Gift Disclosure Law (33 V.S.A. § 2005). Available at http://www.atg.state.vt.us/display.php?smod=177. Accessed August 23, 2005.
Arnold & Porter, LLP. “Pharmaceutical Companies Face New State Marketing Disclosure Laws. Arnold & Porter Update.” Available at http://www.arnoldporter.com/pubs/files/Pharma_Marketing_Disclosure_Laws.PDF. Accessed March 17, 2006.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Institute on Medicine as a Profession (IMAP) and the American Board of Internal Medicine (ABIM) Foundation. The authors thank their colleagues on the ABIM–IMAP committee that explored the management of physician conflicts of interest.
Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest
None disclosed.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chimonas, S., Brennan, T.A. & Rothman, D.J. Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship. J GEN INTERN MED 22, 184–190 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0041-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-006-0041-z