Search

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate the newly graduated physicians' attitudes and perceptions regarding the medical relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and identify the sociodemographic patterns related to such thinking., Methods: A structured questionnaire was administered to 4,601 participants selected from a pool of 16,323 physicians who were registered with one of the 27 Regional Medical Councils of Brazil in 2015. Answers were analyzed using two stratification variables: type of medical school (public vs. private) and the sex of the respondents., Results: Out of the participants, 61.8% believed that industry funding could support medical conferences and education, and 48.4% felt that small gifts and conference travel funding were acceptable. Conversely, 64.7% disagreed with industry-sponsored social events. Views on whether pharmaceutical representatives' visits influenced prescriptions were divided. Statistically significant differences were observed between genders and medical school types, with men and private school graduates being more accepting of certain industry interactions., Conclusion: The study highlights the nuanced attitudes of new doctors toward industry relationships, indicating the need for clearer ethical guidelines and education in medical schools to align practice with evolving societal values.

Based on the investigation of financial fairness perception and donation intention of individual donors in non-profit organizations (NPOs), this paper uses structural equation model to analyze the impact of individual donors' financial fairness perception on donation intention. The results show that individual donors' perceptions on financial result fairness, financial procedure fairness and financial information fairness all have positive impact on donation intention; among which the perception on financial result fairness only has direct impact on individual donation intention, while the perceptions on financial procedure fairness and financial information fairness have direct and indirect impact on individual donation intention., Competing Interests: These no potential competing interests in our paper. And all authors have seen the manuscript and approved to submit to your journal. We confirm that the content of the manuscript has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere.

Background: Organ supply-demand in developing countries worldwide has continued to widen. Hence, using a large survey (n ¼ 10,412), this study seeks to investigate whether human psychology could be used to inculcate philanthropy to raise deceased organ donation rates., Methods: Three models were constructed to examine multidimensional relationships among the variables. Structural equation modeling was applied to estimate the direct and indirect influence of altruism, financial incentives, donation perception, and socioeconomic status simultaneously on willingness to donate deceased organs., Ethical Considerations: The study was approved by the University of Malaya ethics committee., Results: The results show that altruism amplifies the impact of socioeconomic status and donation perception on willingness to donate. Also, the results show that financial incentives cannot complement altruism to raise organ donation rates. Hence, investing in education and public awareness enhances altruism in people, which then increases the propensity to donate., Conclusion: Evidence suggests that governments should allocate resources to increase public awareness about organ donation. Awareness programs about the importance of philanthropic donations and the participation of medical consultants at hospitals in the processes form the foundation of such a presumptive approach.

Background: Industry marketing to physicians for opioids has received substantial attention as it can potentially influence physicians' prescription of opioids. However, robust evidence demonstrating a causal link between industry payments for opioids and physicians' prescription practice for opioids is lacking., Methods: Using the national databases of physicians treating Medicare beneficiaries, we examined the association between physicians' receipt of opioid-related industry payments in 2016 and (1) the number of opioids prescribed and (2) the annual expenditures for the opioid products by those physicians in 2017, using propensity-score matching in a 1:1 ratio adjusting for the physician characteristics (sex, years in practice, medical school attended, specialty), the number of opioid prescriptions in 2016, and physicians' financial relationships with industry in 2015. We compared matched pairs of physicians using the estimated effect and paired t-test., Results: Among 43 778 physicians included after propensity-score matching, physicians who received opioid-related industry payments in 2016 prescribed more opioids (153.8 vs 129.7; adjusted difference (95% CI), 24.1 (19.1 to 29.1)) and accounted for more spending due to opioids ($10 476 vs $6983; adjusted difference (95% CI), $3493 (2854 to 4134)) in 2017, compared with physicians who did not receive payments. The association was larger among primary care physicians than surgeons or specialists. The dose-response analysis revealed that even a small amount of industry payments was sufficient to effectively affect physicians' prescription practice of opioids., Conclusions: Opioid-related industry payments to physicians in the prior year were associated with a higher number of opioid prescriptions and expenditures for opioid products in the subsequent year., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: Gift giving, which has been a heavily debated topic in health care for many years, is considered as a way of expressing gratitude and to be beneficial for the physician-patient relationship within a reasonable range. However, not much work has been done to examine the influence of gift giving on physicians' service quality, especially in the online health care environment., Objective: This study addressed the consequences of gift giving by mining and analyzing the dynamic physician-patient interaction processes in an online health community. Specifically, gift types (affective or instrumental) based on the motivations and physician-patient tie strength were carefully considered to account for differences in physicians' service quality., Methods: The dynamic interaction processes (involving 3154 gifts) between 267 physicians and 14,187 patients from a well-known online health community in China (haodf.com) were analyzed to obtain empirical results., Results: Our results reveal that patient gift giving inspires physicians to improve their service quality as measured by physicians' more detailed responses and improved bedside manner, and the degree of influence varied according to the strength of the physician-patient tie. Moreover, affective gifts and instrumental gifts had different effects in improving physicians' service quality online., Conclusions: This study is among the first to explore gift giving in online health communities providing both important theoretical and practical contributions. All of our results suggest that gift giving online is of great significance to promoting effective physician-patient communication and is conducive to the relief of physician-patient conflicts., (©Li Peng, Yanan Wang, Jing Chen. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (http://www.jmir.org), 30.07.2020.)

Importance: Philanthropy is an increasingly important source of support for health care institutions. There is little empirical evidence to inform ethical guidelines., Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding specific practices used by health care institutions to encourage philanthropic donations from grateful patients., Design, Setting, and Participants: Using the Ipsos KnowledgePanel, a probability-based sample representative of the US population, a survey solicited opinions from a primary cohort representing the general population and 3 supplemental cohorts (with high income, cancer, and with heart disease, respectively)., Exposures: Web-based questionnaire., Main Outcomes and Measures: Descriptive analyses (with percentages weighted to make the sample demographically representative of the US population) evaluated respondents' attitudes regarding the acceptability of strategies hospitals may use to identify, solicit, and thank donors; perceptions of the effect of physicians discussing donations with their patients; and opinions regarding gift use and stewardship., Results: Of 831 individuals targeted for the general population sample, 513 (62%) completed surveys, of whom 246 (48.0%) were women and 345 (67.3%) non-Hispanic white. In the weighted sample, 47.0% (95% CI, 42.3%-51.7%) responded that physicians giving patient names to hospital fundraising staff after asking patients' permission was definitely or probably acceptable; 8.5% (95% CI, 5.7%-11.2%) endorsed referring without asking permission. Of the participants, 79.5% (95% CI, 75.6%-83.4%) reported it acceptable for physicians to talk to patients about donating if patients have brought it up; 14.2% (95% CI, 10.9%-17.6%) reported it acceptable when patients have not brought it up; 9.9% (95% CI, 7.1%-12.8%) accepted hospital development staff performing wealth screening using publicly available data to identify patients capable of large donations. Of the participants, 83.2% (95% CI, 79.5%-86.9%) agreed that physicians talking with their patients about donating may interfere with the patient-physician relationship. For a hypothetical patient who donated $1 million, 50.1% (95% CI, 45.4%-54.7%) indicated it would be acceptable for the hospital to show thanks by providing nicer hospital rooms, 26.0% (95% CI, 21.9%-30.1%) by providing expedited appointments, and 19.8% (95% CI, 16.1%-23.5%) by providing physicians' cell phone numbers., Conclusions and Relevance: In this survey study of participants drawn from the general US population, a substantial proportion did not endorse legally allowable approaches for identifying, engaging, and thanking patient-donors.

The article argues that altruistic giving based on anonymity, which is expected to promote social solidarity and block trade in human body parts, is conceptually defective and practically unproductive. It needs to be replaced by a more adequate notion which responds to the human practices of giving and receiving. The argument starts with identification of the main characteristics of the anonymous altruistic donation: social separation of the organ donor (or donor family) from the recipient, their mutual replaceability, non-obligatoriness of donation, and non-obligatoriness of reciprocation on the recipient's part. Since these characteristics are also central to typical market relations, anonymous altruistic donation not only cannot promote solidarity but may encourage proposals for (regulated) markets of transplantable organs. Thus, transplant ethics needs to be reframed. It needs to be rooted in, rather than promote, the practices of giving and receiving known to human societies. As the basis for such reframing, the idea of sharing in another's misfortune is proposed. It relies on the human practices of giving and receiving and, with appropriate regulatory safeguards, can provide a better conceptual basis for blocking commercial exchanges of human body parts.

Introduction: The physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship has been identified as an ethical problem, due to conflicts of interest motivated by the benefits that doctors receive and that can affect their clinical judgment., Objective: To identify the frequency of physicians participation in activities financed by the pharmaceutical industry (PI), their attitudes towards PI representatives (PIRs), their prescriptive behavior and the association between their characteristics and their workplace with their participation in activities financed by the PI., Method: Cross-sectional survey to internists and cardiologists. The questionnaire included characteristics of the doctors and their workplace, participation in activities financed by the PI, attitudes towards PIRs, and prescription behavior., Results: 455 questionnaires were analyzed; 78.5 % of surveyed subjects were aware of the physician-PI relationship, the majority acknowledged meeting with PIRs, 30 % indicated having received financial subsidies and 10 % considered that gifts affect their prescription. Having prior knowledge of the physician-PI relationship was associated with less participation in PI-financed educational activities., Conclusion: Practices and preferences towards the PI show the need to design strategies to avoid inappropriate prescription., Introducción: La relación médico-industria farmacéutica (IF) se ha identificado como un problema ético por favorecer conflictos de interés derivados de los beneficios que reciben los médicos y que pueden afectar su juicio clínico., Objetivo: Identificar la frecuencia de participación de médicos en actividades financiadas por la IF, las actitudes de estos profesionales hacia los representantes de la IF, su conducta prescriptiva y la asociación de sus características y del trabajo con la participación en actividades financiadas por la IF., Método: Encuesta transversal a médicos internistas y cardiólogos. El cuestionario incluyó características de los médicos y centro de trabajo, participación en actividades financiadas por la IF, actitudes hacia los representantes y conducta de prescripción., Resultados: Se analizaron 455 cuestionarios, 78.5 % de los encuestados tuvo conocimiento de la relación médico-IF, la mayoría respondió reunirse con representantes de la IF, 30 % indicó haber recibido subsidios financieros y 10 % consideró que los obsequios afectan su prescripción. Tener conocimiento previo de la relación médico-IF se asoció con menor participación en actividades educativas financiadas por por la IF., Conclusión: Las prácticas y preferencias hacia la IF muestran la necesidad de diseñar estrategias para evitar la prescripción inapropiada., (Copyright: © 2020 Permanyer.)

Background and Objectives: Direct pharmaceutical marketing to physicians by pharmaceutical representatives is effective in changing behavior of health care providers, resulting in less evidence-based prescribing. Although much has been written about pharmaceutical marketing exposures among medical students, less is known about direct marketing exposures before students matriculate. This study examined the types of pharmaceutical representative direct marketing exposures for premedical students and where they occurred., Methods: From June to August of 2017, researchers surveyed students who accepted admission to US public medical schools. These prematriculated students completed our survey just prior to matriculation. The survey inquired about whether the students were exposed to pharmaceutical marketing directly from pharmaceutical salespeople, the types of marketing they observed or received, and where these interactions occurred., Results: Survey participants included 911 prematriculated students from 14 of the 188 medical schools invited to participate. Seventy-one percent (646) of the participants received or observed someone receiving pharmaceutical marketing gifts, small meals or snacks, articles, or samples. The two most common contexts for direct pharmaceutical marketing exposures were during shadowing experiences (54%, 346) and during employment (50%, 323)., Conclusions: The findings suggest that it may be common for medical students to have interacted directly with pharmaceutical salespeople or observed other health professionals in these interactions before they matriculate in medical school. Because many of these interactions occur during clinical experiences required by institutions for admission, medical schools and premedical associations should consider delivering conflict-of-interest education early in medical school education or before students matriculate.

Despite the successes of financial incentives in increasing uptake of evidence-based interventions, acceptability is polarized. Given widespread interest in the use of financial incentives, we update findings from Giles and colleagues' 2015 systematic review (n = 81). The objectives of this systematic review are to identify what is known about financial incentives directed to patients for health-related behavior change, assess how acceptability varies, and address which aspects and features of financial incentives are potentially acceptable and not acceptable, and why. PRISMA guidelines were used for searching peer-reviewed journals across 10 electronic databases. We included empirical and non-empirical papers published between 1/1/14 and 6/1/18. After removal of duplicates, abstract screening, and full-text reviews, 47 papers (n = 31 empirical, n = 16 scholarly) met inclusion criteria. We assessed empirical papers for risk of bias and conducted a content analysis of extracted data to synthesize key findings. Five themes related to acceptability emerged from the data: fairness, messaging, character, liberty, and tradeoffs. The wide range of stakeholders generally preferred rewards over penalties, vouchers over cash, smaller values over large, and certain rewards over lotteries. Deposits were viewed unfavorably. Findings were mixed on acceptability of targeting specific populations. Breastfeeding, medication adherence, smoking cessation, and vaccination presented as more complicated incentive targets than physical activity, weight loss, and self-management. As researchers, clinicians, and policymakers explore the use of financial incentives for challenging health behaviors, additional research is needed to understand how acceptability influences uptake and ultimately health outcomes., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Drug companies rely on their marketing activities to influence physicians. Previous studies showed that pharmaceutical companies succeeded to manage physicians prescribing behavior in developed countries. However, very little studies investigated the impact of pharmaceutical marketing strategies on prescribing pattern in developing countries, middle-eastern countries. The objective of this research was to examine the influence of drug companies' strategies on physicians' prescription behavior in the Lebanese market concerning physicians' demographic variables quantitatively. Moreover, this study tested whether Lebanese physicians considered gifts and samples acceptance as an ethical practice., Methods: Sampling was done by using a non-probability method. An online cross-sectional study was conducted through WhatsApp. A self-administered questionnaire survey was conducted during the months of February and March 2018. Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficient was calculated. Data were statistically analyzed by using IBM SPSS statistics version 24 software. Chi-square and Cramer's v tests were used to finding sign correlation, and Spearman test was used to measure the strength and direction of a relationship between variables., Results: Results found that pharmaceutical marketing strategies are correlated to physicians' prescribing behavior. We demonstrated that the majority of the promotional tools tested were mostly or sometimes motivating physicians to prescribe promoted drugs. The major tools that physicians agreed to be mostly motivated by are visits of medical representatives and drug samples while sales calls made by pharmaceutical companies are the less influential tool. Regarding gift acceptance, this study demonstrated that physicians consider gifts' acceptance as a non-ethical practice. Results showed that most physicians use free samples to treat their patients. We demonstrated that there is a relationship between physicians' prescribing pattern and their age, gender and the location of practice., Conclusions: Findings of this study provided an insightful work, serving as one of the first humble steps in the imminent direction of merging this paper with the previous literature. From a managerial perspective, pharmaceutical marketing managers of drug companies can use the research findings to design better their strategies directed to the Lebanese physicians who can also benefit from the results obtained.

Objective: To characterize the association between industry payments and prescriptions of 2 brand-name proton-pump inhibitors (PPIs)., Study Design: Cross-sectional retrospective., Setting: Physicians nationwide., Subjects and Methods: We identified all physicians receiving industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium 2014-2015 from the Open Payments database. We linked this to records of prescriptions for PPIs paid for by Medicare Part D these same years and compared the proportion of prescriptions written for Dexilant and Nexium in industry-compensated vs nonindustry compensated physicians. The number and dollar amount of payments were associated with the rate of drug prescriptions., Results: We identified 254,452 physicians prescribing PPIs; 8586 and 2766 physicians received industry payments for Dexilant and Nexium, respectively. A total of 5052 of 7876 (64%) physicians compensated for Dexilant prescribed Dexilant vs 39,778 of 246,571 (16%) noncompensated physicians ( P < .001). For Nexium, 2525 of 2654 (95%) compensated physicians prescribed Nexium, compared to 123,913 of 252,067 (49%) noncompensated physicians. For both Dexilant and Nexium, there was a significant correlation between the number (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.12, P < .001) and dollar amount (ρ = 0.22, P < .001 and ρ = 0.13, P < .001) of payments and the percentage of prescriptions written for the compensated drug. Industry payments for Nexium remained associated with rate of prescription even after generic esomeprazole became available., Conclusion: Both the number and dollar amount of industry payments were associated with increased prescriptions for both Dexilant and Nexium. Although unable to show causality, this study suggests that industry payments may increase physician prescriptions of costly, brand-name drugs.

Background: While the rise in opioid analgesic prescribing and overdose deaths was multifactorial, financial relationships between opioid drug manufacturers and physicians may be one important factor., Methods: Using national data from 2013 to 2015, we conducted a retrospective cohort study linking the Open Payments database and Medicare Part D drug utilization data. We created two cohorts of physicians, those receiving opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013, and those receiving opioid-related payments in 2015 but not in 2013 and 2014. Our main outcome measures were expenditures on filled prescriptions, daily doses filled, and expenditures per daily dose. For each cohort, we created a comparison group that did not receive an opioid-related payment in any year and was matched on state, specialty, and baseline opioid expenditures. We used a difference-in-differences analysis with linear generalized estimating equations regression models., Results: We identified 6,322 physicians who received opioid-related payments in 2014 and 2015, but not in 2013; they received a mean total of $251. Relative to comparison group physicians, they had a significantly larger increase in mean opioid expenditures ($6,171; 95% CI: 4,997 to 7,346), daily doses dispensed (1,574; 95%CI: 1,330 to 1,818) and mean expenditures per daily dose ($0.38; 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.47). We identified 8,669 physicians who received opioid-related payments in 2015, but not in 2013 or 2014; they received a mean total of $40. Relative to comparison physicians, they also had a larger increase in mean opioid expenditures ($1,031; 95% CI: 603 to 1,460), daily doses dispensed (557; 95% CI: 417 to 697), and expenditures per daily dose ($0.06; 95% CI: 0.002 to 0.13)., Conclusions: Our findings add to the growing public policy concern that payments from opioid drug manufacturers can influence physician prescribing. Interventions are needed to reduce such promotional activities or to mitigate their influence., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Grateful patients provide substantial philanthropic funding for health care institutions, resulting in important societal benefits. Although grateful patient fundraising (GPFR) is widespread, it raises an array of ethical issues for patients, physicians, development professionals, and institutions. These issues have not been described comprehensively, and there is insufficient guidance to inform the ethical practice of GPFR. Consequently, the authors convened a "Summit on the Ethics of Grateful Patient Fundraising," with the goal of identifying primary ethical issues in GPFR and offering recommendations regarding how to manage them. Participants were 29 experts from across the United States who represented the perspectives of bioethics, clinical practice, development, law, patients, philanthropy, psychology, and regulatory compliance. Intensive discussions resulted in articulating ethical issues for physicians and other clinicians (discussions with patients about philanthropy; physician-initiated discussions; clinically vulnerable patients; conflicts of obligation and equity regarding physician's time, attention, and responsiveness and the provision of special services; and transparency and respecting donor intent) as well as for development officers and institutions (transparency in the development professional-donor relationship; impact on clinical care; confidentiality and privacy; conflicts of interest; institution-patient/donor relationship; concierge services for grateful patients; scientific merit and research integrity; transparency in use of philanthropic gifts; and institutional policies and training in responsible GPFR). While these recommendations promise to mitigate some of the ethical issues associated with GPFR, important next steps include conducting research on the ethical issues in GPFR, disseminating these recommendations, developing standardized training for clinicians regarding them, and revising them as warranted.

Kidney transplantation for end-stage renal disease remains the preferred solution due to its survival advantage, enhanced quality of life and cost-effectiveness. The main obstacle worldwide with this modality of treatment is the scarcity of organs. The demand has always exceeded the supply resulting in different types of donations. Kidney donation includes pure living related donors, deceased donors, living unrelated donors (altruistic), paired kidney donation and more recently compensated kidney donation. Ethical considerations in live donor kidney transplantation have always created a debate especially when rewarding unrelated donors. In this paper, we examine the problems of financially driven kidney transplantation, the ethical legitimacy of this practice, and propose some innovative methods and policies that could be adopted to ensure a better practice with accepted ethical guidelines., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest: None declared., (Copyright® by the International Brazilian Journal of Urology.)

media-1vid110.1542/5787668327001PEDS-VA&#95;2017-2837 Video Abstract Gift giving is psychologically and culturally complex. In any context, a gift can have multiple meanings. In the context of the doctor-patient relationship, the giving of gifts and decisions about whether to accept gifts raise complex ethical issues. In this essay, a number of pediatric oncologists discuss the ethical considerations that should guide physicians as they decide how to respond to an extravagant gift from a family., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2018 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Incorporating classmates' unique one-word reflections on human anatomy and the experience of engaging with the bodies of our anatomical donors, this series captures a diverse spectrum of human emotions surrounding anatomical dissection. Grappling with the humanity of our varied reactions, we related ourselves-ethically and clinically, individually and collectively-to our first "patients" and their critical role in our education and growth as physicians., (© 2018 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.)

In the medical practice in China, giving and taking "red envelopes" (monetary gifts) is a common phenomenon although few openly admit it. This paper, based on our empirical study including data collected from interviews and questionnaires with medical professionals and patients, attempts to explore why "red envelopes" have become a serious problem in the physician-patient relationship and how the situation can be improved. Previous studies show that scholars tend to correlate the spread of "red envelopes" in health care sector to the commercialization trend, the general erosion of traditional values, and the lowering of the moral level in the medical field. However, in this paper, the authors argue that medical professionals' choice of taking "red envelopes" is actually more a way to compensate for their problematic self-image and marred dignity in real practice. Medical professionals in China as a whole are in an embarrassing situation where the work pressure and income, and the sense of pride that used to be part of their profession are not comparable to each other. Under this circumstance, we believe that the effective way to deal with the "red envelopes" issue does not lie solely in introducing more stringent regulations or granting medical professionals higher payments, but rather in protecting and enhancing the professional dignity of all those working in healthcare. And on top of that, there must also be effort to cultivate a more favorable moral environment., (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Since the introduction of the Sunshine Act in 2010 and Open Payments Database (OPD) in 2013, a significant amount of data has been collected on physicians and the payments received through ties with pharmaceutical and medical device companies. To date, a study within the field of otology and neurotology using data from the 2015 OPD has not been conducted. As such, we assessed the validity and accuracy of OPD information for otologists and neurotologists (O&Ns). Of the 126 physicians listed as O&Ns in the OPD, 25 were actually general otolaryngologists, and 1 was a cardiologist. In addition, 88 O&Ns were misclassified by the OPD as general otolaryngologists. A total of 1156 payments, summing $1,966,204, were made to O&Ns as a whole, with 646, 507, and 3 payments classified as general, research, and ownership/investment interests, respectively. Analysis of OPD data for O&Ns demonstrates a significant financial relationship between O&N physicians and industry, as well as noteworthy inaccuracies in the OPD that likely affect other subspecialties.

Most physicians receive gifts from their patients during their careers, but what to think of these presents and how to react to them? For many years, generous patients led to uneasiness: they might expect special services from the physician; or other patients - who did not give anything - could feel disadvantaged over generous patients. These are good reasons not to be too keen on gifts. They still lead to uneasiness now, but the situation has nevertheless been reappraised as it goes against the general tendency to complain about everything: a token of appreciation is welcome. We should keep in mind that many patients have sincere intentions when giving presents. Just as in our clinical decision-making, we should trust our common sense when appreciating and accepting presents. However, verbal or written expressions of gratitude are preferable to physical presents since the former ones are far less complicated.

Gifts and payments from pharmaceutical manufacturers to medical doctors constitute a conflict of interest, which may lead to an undue influence on prescribing behavior. In Germany, 35 research-based pharmaceutical companies, organized in the "Verband der forschenden Arzneimittelhersteller (VfA)" paid € 562 million to medical doctors and hospitals in 2016. Of these, € 356 million were paid for clinical trials and non-interventional studies, € 105 million for sponsored presentations and CME and € 101 million went to hospitals and other organizations for sponsoring, consulting and events. This article gives a short review on the different kinds of interactions, discusses psychological mechanisms and legal aspects of accepting gifts and recommends not to accept any gifts and donations from pharmaceutical companies to avoid undue influences on prescribing behavior. There are many ways to keep up to date using independent sources of information, and independent CME-events are growing in number - examples are given., Competing Interests: Interessenkonflikte: Prof. Lieb hat seit 2008 keine Honorare für Beratertätigkeiten, Fortbildungsveranstaltungen, Vorträge oder Stellungnahmen von pharmazeutischen Unternehmen oder Medizinprodukteherstellern erhalten. Für die Durchführung von klinischen Auftragsstudien oder anderen Forschungsvorhaben erhielten Mitarbeiter seiner Klinik in den letzten drei Jahren Zuwendungen auf ein Drittmittelkonto von D&A Pharma, Hoffmann La Roche, Janssen-Cilag, INC Research, Roche Pharma und Roche Products Limited. Prof. Lieb erhält von der Akademie für ärztliche Fortbildung Rheinland-Pfalz Honorare für die Durchführung der unabhängigen Fortbildungsreihe Psychiatrie und Psychotherapie und ist wissenschaftlicher Leiter von LIBERMED, die seit 2017 unabhängige Fortbildungen anbietet.Dr. Koch hat noch nie persönliche Zuwendungen von pharmazeutischen Unternehmen oder Medizinprodukteherstellern erhalten. Sie erhielt im Rahmen eines Forschungsvorhabens zur Entwicklung eines Curriculums für Medizinstudierende zum Thema Interessenkonflikte Gelder der VolkswagenStiftung., (© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.)

Objectives: The objective of this review is to explore interactions between physicians and the pharmaceutical industry including sales representatives and their impact on physicians' attitude and prescribing habits., Data Sources: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library and Google scholar electronic databases were searched from 1992 to August 2016 using free-text words and medical subject headings relevant to the topic., Study Selection: Studies included cross-sectional studies, cohort studies, randomised trials and survey designs. Studies with narrative reviews, case reports, opinion polls and letters to the editor were excluded from data synthesis., Data Extraction: Two reviewers independently extracted the data. Data on study design, study year, country, participant characteristics, setting and number of participants were collected., Data Synthesis: Pharmaceutical industry and pharmaceutical sales representative (PSR) interactions influence physicians' attitudes and their prescribing behaviour and increase the number of formulary addition requests for the company's drug., Conclusion: Physician-pharmaceutical industry and its sales representative's interactions and acceptance of gifts from the company's PSRs have been found to affect physicians' prescribing behaviour and are likely to contribute to irrational prescribing of the company's drug. Therefore, intervention in the form of policy implementation and education about the implications of these interactions is needed., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.)

Objective: This article aims to describe how Polish physicians cooperate with the pharmaceutical industry and show how this relationship may pose a threat to public health., Methods: It considers the results of an online survey of 379 physicians. The survey was hosted by surveymonkey.com with links from a Polish physicians' website (Medycyna Praktyczna) between 29 October 2013 and 31 December 2013. The sample was purposive, respondents having to be physicians working in Poland., Results: The majority of respondents (96.8%) said that they had talked with pharmaceutical sales representatives (PSRs) in their practice, with 85% saying that they had had regular contact with them. Despite the existing legal ban in Poland, 35% of respondents admitted that they had usually met with PSRs in their office during working hours. As many as 81.8% of surveyed doctors said that they had taken part in an educational meeting organized by the pharmaceutical industry at least once during the 12 months preceding the study. A majority of the respondents (72.3%) said they trusted the information provided by PSRs. Over one third of respondents (36.4%) claimed that Polish doctors accepted gifts of a type that they should not accept according to Polish law., Conclusions: The study showed that Polish physicians cooperate in different ways with pharmaceutical companies and have frequent contact with them. This can influence their knowledge and doctors whose knowledge of drugs is based mainly on information from pharmaceutical industry materials may prescribe medicines in a biased way, possibly exposing their patients to sub-optimal treatments and burdening both their patients and the state budget with unnecessary costs. Lack of trust in doctors and pharmaceutical companies have other implications too: there may be a decline of faith in the efficacy of therapy and patients may be encouraged to engage in self-diagnosis and self-treatment. For these reasons it is necessary to increase transparency and strengthen the ethical guidelines surrounding the physician-pharmaceutical industry relationship in Poland. The present findings also have implications for public health policy.

Objective: In the present study, we used a structured approach based on publicly available information to identify the corporate political activity (CPA) strategies of three major actors in the dairy industry in France., Design: We collected publicly available information from the industry, government and other sources over a 6-month period, from March to August 2015. Data collection and analysis were informed by an existing framework for classifying the CPA of the food industry. Setting/Subjects Our study included three major actors in the dairy industry in France: Danone, Lactalis and the Centre National Interprofessionnel de l'Economie Laitière (CNIEL), a trade association., Results: During the period of data collection, the dairy industry employed CPA practices on numerous occasions by using three strategies: the 'information and messaging', the 'constituency building' and the 'policy substitution' strategies. The most common practice was the shaping of evidence in ways that suited the industry. The industry also sought involvement in the community, establishing relationships with public health professionals, academics and the government., Conclusions: Our study shows that the dairy industry used several CPA practices, even during periods when there was no specific policy debate on the role of dairy products in dietary guidelines. The information provided here could inform public health advocates and policy makers and help them ensure that commercial interests of industry do not impede public health policies and programmes.

In 2008, thousands of Malawians received soap from an American research project as a gift for survey participation. Soap was deemed an ethical, non-coercive gift by researchers and ethics boards, but took on meanings that expressed recipients' grievances and aspirations. Research participants reframed soap and research benefits as "rights" they are entitled to, wages for "work," and a symbol of exploitation. Enlisting the perspectives of Malawi's ethics board, demographers, Malawian fieldworkers, and research participants, I describe how soap is spoken about and operates in research worlds. I suggest that neither a prescriptive nor a situated frame for ethics-with their investments in standardization and attention to context, respectively-provides answers about how to compensate Malawian research participants. The conclusion gestures toward a reparative framework for thinking ethics that is responsive not just to project-based parameters but also to the histories and political economy in which projects (and ethics) are situated., (© 2017 by the American Anthropological Association.)

In the last century, rapidly advancing technological innovations have become essential components of modern healthcare, increasing the frequency and necessity of interactions between physicians and industry. These interactions have the potential to bias objectivity and should be approached carefully. A recent JACR article by Harvey et al, highlighted 2014 CMS data, which reported that only 4% of radiologists had interactions with industry, coming in second lowest amongst all 19 reported specialties. However, when managed appropriately, physician-industry relationships can mutually benefit patients, research, payers, providers, hospitals and the medical industry. In order to maintain relevance in the evolving healthcare landscape, it is imperative that radiologists establish, maintain, and expand relationships with industry. To help providers work within the ethical safety of institutional guidelines, while still promoting innovation, we propose a methodical approach with 7 key components to consider when developing appropriate physician-industry relationships or evaluating new products., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The pharmaceutical industry spends roughly 15 billion dollars annually on detailing - providing gifts, information, samples, trips, honoraria and other inducements - to physicians in order to encourage them to prescribe their drugs. In response, several states in the United States adopted policies that restrict detailing. Some states banned gifts from pharmaceutical companies to doctors, other states simply required physicians to disclose the gifts they receive, while most states allowed unrestricted detailing. We exploit this geographic variation to examine the relationship between gift regulation and the diffusion of four newly marketed medications. Using a dataset that captures 189 million psychotropic prescriptions written between 2005 and 2009, we find that uptake of new costly medications was significantly lower in states with marketing regulation than in areas that allowed unrestricted pharmaceutical marketing. In states with gift bans, we observed reductions in market shares ranging from 39% to 83%. Policies banning or restricting gifts were associated with the largest reductions in uptake. Disclosure policies were associated with a significantly smaller reduction in prescribing than gift bans and gift restrictions. In states that ban gift-giving, peer influence substituted for pharmaceutical detailing when a relatively beneficial drug came to market and provided a less biased channel for physicians to learn about new medications. Our work suggests that policies banning or limiting gifts from pharmaceutical representatives to doctors are likely to be more effective than disclosure policies alone., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

We sought to explore the relationship between the podiatric medical student and the patient as it relates to the act of gift-giving as a sign of gratefulness for the services provided. This article presents the clinical case of a man who visited a podiatric medical student because of pain in his feet and subsequently presented the student with several gifts. Philanthropy, empathy, a positive attitude, treatment instructions, and the time devoted to the patient are some of the reasons why patients offer gifts to podiatric medical students. The relationship between the podiatric medical student and the patient and the act of gift-giving by patients are of ethical concern.

Background: Best practices for conflict-of-interest (COI) policies in medical schools have evolved rapidly over the past decade, in part motivated by the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) scorecard that has publicly graded schools since 2007. This report describes the methodological update and impact of revisions to the scorecard in 2014., Methods: The original AMSA scorecard (used annually from 2008 to 2013) was revised by a work group to improve its methodology and to increase the stringency of its criteria for scoring COI policies. All U.S. medical schools (both allopathic and osteopathic; n = 160) were invited to submit their COI policies to AMSA for scoring with the new scorecard; web site searches were used to acquire policy information for schools that did not submit. The authors developed a codebook and analyzed 14 distinct categories of COI policies, pertaining to activities such as industry-funded gifts, meals, educational events, site access for sales reps, and conflict-of-interest disclosure requirements. The analysis yielded four possible grades for each school: A, B, C, or I (incomplete). The authors compared 2014 grades with 2013 grades, and compared the distribution of grades of schools by type (allopathic vs. osteopathic) and geographical region., Results: A total of 27 (16.9 %) medical schools scored A grades, indicating that their COI policies were strong, 81 (50.6 %) scored B, 25 (15.6 %) scored C and 26 (16.3 %) policies scored I. As compared to 2013, in 2014 fewer schools qualified for A grades (17.0 % vs. 26.0 %; p = 0.05). The grade distributions of allopathic and osteopathic schools were significantly different (p < 0.0001), with osteopathic schools more likely than allopathic schools to have incomplete policies. There were no significant grade differences by geographical region., Conclusions: The revised 2014 AMSA scorecard, with its more stringent criteria for evaluating COI policies, assigned fewer As and more Bs and Cs than in years past. This was the first study to identify schools with COI policies stronger than those recommended in 2008 by the Association of American Medical Colleges. Developing more stringent COI policies should be helpful in reducing the influence of pharmaceutical and device industry marketing on both trainees and faculty in American medical schools.

Pharmaceutical representatives use detailing, gift giving, and the donation of free samples as a means to gain access to and influence over physicians. In biomedical ethics, there has been an ongoing debate as to whether these practices constitute an unethical conflict of interest (COI) on the part of the physician. Underlying this debate are the following antecedent questions: (1) what counts as a conflict of interest, (2) when are such conflicts unethical, and (3) how should the ethical physician respond to conflicts? This article distinguishes between two perspectives that have been developed on these issues: a reliable performance model (PM) and a trustworthiness model (TM). PM advocates argue that a conflict of interest can only be established by demonstrating that a particular influence is undermining the reliability of the physician's judgment, and this requires empirical evidence of negative patient outcomes. TM advocates, on the other hand, argue that because of the fiduciary nature of the patient-physician relationship, physicians have an obligation to develop and be worthy of patient trust. A COI, on this view, is a condition that undermines the warrant for patients to judge a physician as trustworthy. Although there is much that is right in the PM, it is argued that the TM does a better job of responsibly addressing the unique vulnerabilities of the patient. The TM is then applied to the practices of detailing, gift giving, and sample donation. It is concluded that these practices constitute an unethical conflict of interest.

Background and Objectives: Pharmaceutical marketing techniques are effective in changing the behavior of health care providers in ways that deviate from evidence-based practices. To mitigate the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on learners, academic medical centers (AMCs) have adopted policies to limit student/industry interaction. Many clinical experiences occur outside of the AMC. The purpose of this study was to compare medical students' exposure to pharmaceutical marketing in off-campus rural and urban underserved clinical sites., Methods: The University of Washington School of Medicine Rural and Underserved Opportunities Program (RUOP) places rising second-year medical students in underserved clinical sites in five northwestern states. We surveyed RUOP students to evaluate their exposure to pharmaceutical marketing., Results: Of 120 students, 86 (72%) completed surveys. Sixty-five (76%) did their RUOP rotation in rural areas. Students in rural locations were more likely to report exposure to pharmaceutical marketing. Distribution of free drug samples was reportedly three times higher in rural than urban sites (54% versus 15%). Doctors meeting with sales representatives were reported as four times higher in rural clinics (40% versus 10%)., Conclusions: Students at rural sites reported exposure to pharmaceutical marketing more than those in urban settings. Rural medical educators should provide faculty development for community clinicians on the influences of pharmaceutical marketing on learners. Medical schools must review local clinic and institution-wide policies to limit pharmaceutical marketing exposure to learners in the rural learning environment.

Background: Physician financial conflict of interest is a concern in the delivery of medicine because of its possible influence on the cost and the quality of patient care. There has been an extensive discussion of the ethical, economic, and legal aspects of this issue but little direct empirical evidence of its magnitude or effects., Methodology: A nationally representative survey (n = 4,720) was used to empirically examine physician self-report of receipt of financial gifts from the pharmaceutical and medical devices industry and its association with their ability to provide quality care., Findings: Results indicate that the vast majority of physicians receive industry gifts in various forms, and the receipt of gifts is associated with lower perceived quality of patient care. There is also an inverse relationship between the frequency of received gifts and the perceived quality of care., Practice Implications: Physicians need to be aware of the widespread receipt of industry gifts in medical practice and the potential adverse impact of such receipts on the delivery of care.

This article takes the following two assumptions for granted: first, that gifts influence physicians and, second, that the influences gifts have on physicians may be harmful for patients. These assumptions are common in the applied ethics literature, and they prompt an obvious practical question, namely, what is the best way to mitigate the negative effects? We examine the negative effects of gift giving in depth, considering how the influence occurs, and we assert that the ethical debate surrounding gift-giving practices must be reoriented. Our main claim is that the failure of recent policies addressing gift giving can be traced to a misunderstanding of what psychological mechanisms are most likely to underpin physicians' biased behavior as a result of interaction with the medical industry. The problem with gift giving is largely not a matter of malicious or consciously self-interested behavior, but of well-intentioned actions on the part of physicians that are nonetheless perniciously infected by the presence of the medical industry. Substantiating this claim will involve elaboration on two points. First, we will retrace the history of policies regarding gift giving between the medical profession and the medical industry and highlight how most policies assume a rationalistic view of moral agency. Reliance on this view of agency is best illustrated by past attempts to address gift giving in terms of conflicts of interest. Second, we will introduce and motivate an alternate view of moral agency emerging from recent literature in social psychology on implicit social cognition. We will show that proper consideration of implicit social cognition paints a picture of human psychology at odds with the rationalistic model assumed in discussions of COIs. With these two pieces on the table we will be able to show that, without fully appreciating the social-psychological mechanisms (both cognitive and affective) of implicit cognition, policy-makers are likely to overlook significant aspects of how gifts influence doctors., (© 2016 The Author. History © 2016 The Historical Association and John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)