Academic literature on the topic 'Unethical drug promotion'

The study examines the effects of drug promotional practices and self-medication behaviour on public health in Lagos. It used a multistage sampling method to select 315 respondents. The researcher selected 12 in-depth interviewees and six focus group discussants to provide qualitative data based on his knowledge of their relevance. The data were analyzed. The logistic regression analysis indicated that drug promotions were less than once more likely to trigger self-medication behaviour among residents relative to being a rule-breaking activity. The study concludes that self-medication endangers public health in Lagos. It suggests the partnership of the stakeholders to promote public drug education, provide free healthcare for all, and criminalize unethical drug promotion practices in Lagos.

The review surveys the problems of pharmaceutical promotion and public health. Global and domestic realities of pharmaceutical marketing are discussed. Various promotional activities of pharmaceutical industry are described with special emphasis on journal advertisements. Examples of unethical marketing practices of the global pharmaceutical companies are presented with details of the fines paid by the companies for unethical promotion of their products for «off-label» use or for long-term concealing of adverse drug reactions known by the companies long before they become freely available for the society. The review presents definition of «disease selling» as a technique extensively used by pharmaceutical industry to promote their products and increase income. Evidence of pharmaceutical promotion detrimental effects on physicians’ prescribing practices is presented in line with the evidence of funding distribution distortion: the global pharmaceutical expenditures for drug promotion are far exceeding research and development funding. The review describes, with few exceptions, the medical journal editors general lack of awareness of journal advertisements influence on prescribers’ knowledge, attitudes and medicine use. The review reveals promotional nature of advertisements as opposed to information delivery. It describes unethical marketing techniques including journal advertising used as an instrument of promotional idea delivery to physicians and the problem of promotional influence on prescribing. The review emphasizes that pharmaceutical industry self-regulation as well as medical journals peer reviewing process do not protect from misleading advertising. It concludes that pharmaceutical advertising, and advertising in medical journals as an example is not informative and threatens public health, requiring detailed regulation.

One of the antecedent processes to drug giving or drug taking is an action (promotion) by pharmaceutical companies to influence these behaviors. In most countries, especially Third World countries, the promotional material is a primary source of drug information to practitioners. When this material is intentionally biased or is accompanied by other unethical practices, company ethics are rightly questioned. Third World pharmaceutical promotional practices are examined, along with some of the consequences that occur as a result of the discovered improprieties. Several factors that impact on public's view of the pharmaceutical industry are discussed as well as their influence on member firm's reputation. The more that a company understands these factors and incorporates this knowledge into their strategic planning, the greater will be its potential for long-term growth and sustained profitability.

Background: Large number of new drugs are introduced into the market everyday. Drug advertisements are used as a major marketing tool by the pharmaceutical companies to promote their new drugs. WHO has recommended the drug promotional advertisement criteria to make promotional more ethical and rational. So, the aim of this study was to evaluate the drug advertisements made by pharmaceutical companies as per WHO ethical criteria. Methods: A descriptive cross-sectional study of drug advertisements was carried out in the Department of Pharmacology at CMC. The drug advertisements were evaluated based on 11 criteria laid down by the WHO. The data was entered in Microsoft Office Excel software 2008 and exported to IBM SPSS 20.0 version software for further analysis. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. Results: Total 185 drug advertisements were evaluated. Among them, most of them 66.40% were promoting single drug formulation. Antimicrobials 21.6% were the most commonly promoted group. Only 12.4% followed all the criteria as led down by WHO. Most of the drug advertisements have the brand name written with approved generic name, dose, manufacture name and dosage form. It was found that the most neglected part of drug advertisements was information related to drug interactions (12.40%) and side effects (14.10%). Conclusions: Majority of drug advertisements fulfilled only half of the WHO ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion. This indicates that unethical drug promotional advertisement is wide spread which need concern of all health authority.

Objectives: To evaluate the ethics of pharmaceutical marketing practices in Sana’a city, Yemen.
 Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 400 physicians and 50 pharmaceutical companies in the period from March to August 2018. Data about pharmaceutical marketing ethics were collected from physicians and pharmaceutical companies using two types of self-administrated, structured questionnaires. Data were analyzed with appropriate statistical tests using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21.0.
 Results: The majority of physicians (60.0%) agreed that medical samples had been used most frequently as a promotional tool for pharmaceutical marketing, followed by gifts (14.0%). More than half of physicians were satisfied with the way of pharmaceutical marketing in Yemen. Personal relationships and medical samples and gifts were the factors affecting their prescriptions, being reported by about a third of physicians each. Meanwhile, most physicians (44.0%) preferred medical conferences and exhibitions as a promotional benefit to be gotten for prescribing the company’s products. The majority of physicians (62.0%) agreed that the availability of medical samples affect their prescriptions, and about 28.2% of physicians reported that all medical samples are used by their patients. Most physicians (37.0%) perceived that only 50% of medical representatives respond well to their queries related to marketed drugs, and 41.5% of physicians agreed that global companies are more compliant with ethical marketing. About 60% of the physicians reported not facing unethical promotions, and the majority (54.0%) agreed that unethical pharmaceutical marketing is the responsibility of companies, physicians, and representatives. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of drug prescriptions affected by medical representative visits and availability of medical samples on prescription in relation to the work experience of physicians. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant difference in facing an unethical promotion offered by companies for prescribing their products and the attribution of unethical pharmaceutical marketing in relation to the type of medical profession of physicians.
 Conclusions: Pharmaceutical marketing in Yemen still depends on traditional tools, with the lack of ethical guidelines or codes for pharmaceutical marketing in the country. Work experience and medical profession of physicians can significantly affect pharmaceutical marketing. The spread of unethical marketing is the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies, physicians and medical representatives. Therefore, it is recommended to develop well-defined and updated ethical standards and national guidelines for pharmaceutical marketing by the Ministry of Public Health and Population. Furthermore, official campaigns should be regularly carried out to control and restrict unethical promotion. Further studies on the ethics of pharmaceutical marketing are also recommended. Pharmaceutical companies should continuously train their medical representatives and provide physicians with the latest medical knowledge about new drugs.
 Keywords: Pharmaceutical marketing, Ethics, IFPMA guidelines, Sana’a

Objectives: To evaluate the ethics of pharmaceutical marketing practices in Sana’a city, Yemen.
 Methods: A cross-sectional study was conducted among 400 physicians and 50 pharmaceutical companies in the period from March to August 2018. Data about pharmaceutical marketing ethics were collected from physicians and pharmaceutical companies using two types of self-administrated, structured questionnaires. Data were analyzed with appropriate statistical tests using IBM SPSS Statistics, version 21.0.
 Results: The majority of physicians (60.0%) agreed that medical samples had been used most frequently as a promotional tool for pharmaceutical marketing, followed by gifts (14.0%). More than half of physicians were satisfied with the way of pharmaceutical marketing in Yemen. Personal relationships and medical samples and gifts were the factors affecting their prescriptions, being reported by about a third of physicians each. Meanwhile, most physicians (44.0%) preferred medical conferences and exhibitions as a promotional benefit to be gotten for prescribing the company’s products. The majority of physicians (62.0%) agreed that the availability of medical samples affect their prescriptions, and about 28.2% of physicians reported that all medical samples are used by their patients. Most physicians (37.0%) perceived that only 50% of medical representatives respond well to their queries related to marketed drugs, and 41.5% of physicians agreed that global companies are more compliant with ethical marketing. About 60% of the physicians reported not facing unethical promotions, and the majority (54.0%) agreed that unethical pharmaceutical marketing is the responsibility of companies, physicians, and representatives. There was a statistically significant difference in the proportion of drug prescriptions affected by medical representative visits and availability of medical samples on prescription in relation to the work experience of physicians. On the other hand, there was a statistically significant difference in facing an unethical promotion offered by companies for prescribing their products and the attribution of unethical pharmaceutical marketing in relation to the type of medical profession of physicians.
 Conclusions: Pharmaceutical marketing in Yemen still depends on traditional tools, with the lack of ethical guidelines or codes for pharmaceutical marketing in the country. Work experience and medical profession of physicians can significantly affect pharmaceutical marketing. The spread of unethical marketing is the responsibility of pharmaceutical companies, physicians and medical representatives. Therefore, it is recommended to develop well-defined and updated ethical standards and national guidelines for pharmaceutical marketing by the Ministry of Public Health and Population. Furthermore, official campaigns should be regularly carried out to control and restrict unethical promotion. Further studies on the ethics of pharmaceutical marketing are also recommended. Pharmaceutical companies should continuously train their medical representatives and provide physicians with the latest medical knowledge about new drugs.
 Keywords: Pharmaceutical marketing, Ethics, IFPMA guidelines, Sana’a

The article describes the results of the assessment methods of medicines promotion in health care organizations The purpose of our study was to study the factors affecting the prescribing, consumption and dispensing of medicines to develop measures to contain unethical drug marketing. For study this issue was used the method of interviewing and questioning of doctors, pharmacists and patients. Our results have shown that there are numerous factors in the health system, which contribute to a violation of the practice for rational prescribing and dispensing of medicines, as well as the absence of regulatory mechanisms in the medicines promotion on the market in the Kyrgyz Republic. The results of the study among this category of respondents confirm the limited access of doctors and pharmacists to quality sources of medicines information, which explains the shortcomings in informing patients on their part, which also serves unethical drug marketing. A direct correlation was established between information sources of about medicines and work experience, i.e. than more work experience, the more information is used from medical representatives and activities conducted by pharmaceutical companies (p < 0.05). The identified factors are associated with unethical medicines promotion, inadequate implementation of the generic strategy, non-prescription dispensing of all medicines, inadequate provision of quality reliable information, low awareness, lack of skills in critical assessment of the information provided. In connection with this, there is a high sensitivity of specialists to various incentives from pharmaceutical companies. All of the above in aggregate contribute to the irrational use of medicines, with all the ensuing consequences.

With the increase in the number of new drugs and high competition among pharmaceutical companies, medical representatives use DPL to promote their drugs. DPLs are one of the most accessible means of drug information. Therefore, drug promotion by ethical means is important as it influences rational and ethical prescribing by clinicians. This study was undertaken to evaluate and analyze the various DPLs for their ethical and scientific status as per WHO Ethical Drug Promotion Guidelines. This is a cross-sectional, observational study, conducted by evaluating and analyzing 207 DPLs collected randomly over a period of 6 months from various OPDs of Jorhat Medical College and Hospital. Of the 207 DPLs, a single drug was promoted in 48.31% and 51.69% were drug combinations. Only 60 (28.98%) of the DPLs fulfilled all 11 WHO criteria. References were mentioned in 75.85%; adverse drug reactions, contraindications, precautions, warnings, and drug interactions were listed in 32.85% of brochures, while dosage regimen was mentioned in 64.73% DPLs. The drug cost was highlighted in 7 DPLs (3.38%), while 2 DPLs (0.97%) did not mention the manufacturer’s name. Although 21.74 % literature showed relevant graphs and tables, 3% of brochures had irrelevant pictures. The most commonly promoted drugs were those acting on CNS (15.94%), followed by drugs acting on the cardiovascular system and anti-diabetic drugs (13.04%). In conclusion, majority of the DPLs did not follow the WHO guidelines and hence inadequate and unreliable drug information was promoted; which may mislead and result in irrational or unethical prescriptions.

Apart from its defined contribution, the role of CSR in addressing health-related issues is not without criticisms. It is given critical weight, particularly about the CSR practices led by the pharmaceutical companies owing to its outright linkage with health outcomes. Thus, shedding light on pharmaceutical companies involved in dealing with a major public health threat associated with antibiotic resistance (ABR) through some forms of CSR practice is of greater importance. This chapter explores CSR practice backed by the evidence from ABR tackling strategies in Bangladesh. Recruiting a case study method, this chapter resorts to some broader theoretical underpinnings of CSR. Primary findings indicate that while CSR is viewed as a self-regulatory mechanism is inadequate in the ground reality. Pharmaceutical companies maintaining legal and ethical standards in antibiotic promotion fall short. Such unethical practices largely became visible with participants reporting taking antibiotics indiscriminately. It worsens due to the lax drug regulation at the field- level in Bangladesh.

Pharmaceutical corporations justify enormous prices and history-making profits by citing their research and development investments, but those investments are exaggerated and the companies waste billions on drug marketing and sales promotions. The current system also leads to unethical corporate behavior and compromises physician integrity.