Hneine Brax

Legislative, educational, policy and other interventions targeting physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review

Background Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviour of physicians. Objective The objective of this study was to systematically review the effects of interventions targeting practising physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies. Eligibility criteria We included observational studies, non-randomised controlled trials (non-RCTs) and RCTs evaluating legislative, educational, policy or other interventions targeting the interactions between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. Data sources The search strategy included an electronic search of MEDLINE and EMBASE. Two reviewers performed duplicate and independent study selection, data abstraction and assessment of risk of bias. Appraisal and synthesis methods We assessed the risk of bias in each included study. We summarised the findings narratively because the nature of the data did not allow a meta-analysis to be conducted. We assessed the quality of evidence by outcome using the GRADE methodology. Results Of 11 189 identified citations, one RCT and three observational studies met the eligibility criteria. All four studies specifically targeted one type of interaction with pharmaceutical companies, that is, interactions with drug representatives. The RCT provided moderate quality evidence of no effect of a ‘collaborative approach’ between the pharmaceutical industry and a health authority. The three observational studies provided low quality evidence suggesting a positive effect of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies (by restricting free samples, promotional material, and meetings with pharmaceutical company representatives) on prescription behaviour. Limitations We identified too few studies to allow strong conclusions. Conclusions Available evidence suggests a potential impact of policies aiming to reduce interaction between physicians and drug representatives on physicians’ prescription behaviour. We found no evidence concerning interventions affecting other types of interaction with pharmaceutical companies.

Association between physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Background Pharmaceutical company representatives likely influence the prescribing habits and professional behaviors of physicians. The objective of this study was to systematically review the association between physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies and their clinical practices. Methods We used the standard systematic review methodology. Observational and experimental study designs examining any type of targeted interaction between practicing physicians and pharmaceutical companies were eligible. The search strategy included a search of MEDLINE and EMBASE databases up to July 2016. Two reviewers selected studies, abstracted data, and assessed risk of bias in duplicate and independently. We assessed the quality of evidence using the GRADE approach. Results Twenty articles reporting on 19 studies met our inclusion criteria. All of these studies were conducted in high-income countries and examined different types of interactions, including detailing, industry-funded continuing medical education, and receiving free gifts. While all included studies assessed prescribing behaviors, four studies also assessed financial outcomes, one assessed physicians’ knowledge, and one assessed their beliefs. None of the studies assessed clinical outcomes. Out of the 19 studies, 15 found a consistent association between interactions promoting a medication, and inappropriately increased prescribing rates, lower prescribing quality, and/or increased prescribing costs. The remaining four studies found both associations and lack of significant associations for the different types of exposures and drugs examined in the studies. A meta-analysis of six of these studies found a statistically significant association between exposure and physicians’ prescribing behaviors (OR = 2.52; 95% CI 1.82–3.50). The quality of evidence was downgraded to moderate for risk of bias and inconsistency. Sensitivity analysis excluding studies at high risk of bias did not substantially change these results. A subgroup analysis did not find a difference by type of exposure. Conclusion There is moderate quality evidence that physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies are associated with their prescribing patterns and quality.

Knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interacting with pharmaceutical companies: a systematic review

BackgroundUnderstanding the perceptions and attitudes of physicians is important. This knowledge assists in the efforts to reduce the impact of their interactions with the pharmaceutical industry on clinical practice. It appears that most studies on such perceptions and attitudes have been conducted in high-income countries. The objective was to systematically review the knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians in low and middle-income countries regarding interactions with pharmaceutical companies.MethodsEligible studies addressed any type of interaction between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. The outcomes of interest included knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of practicing physicians. The search strategy covered MEDLINE and EMBASE databases. Two reviewers completed in duplicate and independently study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. The data synthesis consisted of a narrative summary of the findings stratified by knowledge, beliefs and attitudes.ResultsWe included ten reports from nine eligible studies, each of which had a number of methodological limitations. Four studies found that the top perceived benefits of this interaction were receiving information and rewards. In five out of eight studies assessing the perception regarding the impact of the interaction on the behavior of physician prescription, the majority of participants believed it to be minor. In one of these studies, participants perceived that impact to be lesser when asked about their own behavior. The attitudes of physicians towards information and rewards provided by pharmaceutical company representatives (PCRs) (assessed in 5 and 2 studies respectively) varied across studies. In the only study assessing their attitudes towards pharmaceutical-sponsored Continuing Medical Education, physicians considered local conferences to have higher impact. Their attitudes towards developing policies restricting physicians’ interactions with PCRs were positive in two studies. In one study, the majority of participants did not mind the public knowing that physicians were receiving gifts and awards from drug companies.ConclusionsThis review identified few studies conducted in low and middle-income countries. While physicians generally perceived the impact of interactions on their behavior to be minor, their attitudes toward receiving information and rewards varied across studies.

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

Objective To systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry. Methods We included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country. Results Of the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians’ disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies. Conclusion The awareness of participants was low for physicians’ receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.

A methodological survey identified eight proposed frameworks for the adaptation of health related guidelines

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE Our objective was to identify and describe published frameworks for adaptation of clinical, public health, and health services guidelines. METHODS We included reports describing methods of adaptation of guidelines in sufficient detail to allow its reproducibility. We searched Medline and EMBASE databases. We also searched personal files, as well manuals and handbooks of organizations and professional societies that proposed methods of adaptation and adoption of guidelines. We followed standard systematic review methodology. RESULTS Our search captured 12,021 citations, out of which we identified eight proposed methods of guidelines adaptation: ADAPTE, Adapted ADAPTE, Alberta Ambassador Program adaptation phase, GRADE-ADOLOPMENT, MAGIC, RAPADAPTE, Royal College of Nursing (RCN), and Systematic Guideline Review (SGR). The ADAPTE framework consists of a 24-step process to adapt guidelines to a local context taking into consideration the needs, priorities, legislation, policies, and resources. The Alexandria Center for Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines updated one of ADAPTEs tools, modified three tools, and added three new ones. In addition, they proposed optionally using three other tools. The Alberta Ambassador Program adaptation phase consists of 11 steps and focused on adapting good-quality guidelines for nonspecific low back pain into local context. GRADE-ADOLOPMENT is an eight-step process based on the GRADE Working Groups Evidence to Decision frameworks and applied in 22 guidelines in the context of national guideline development program. The MAGIC research program developed a five-step adaptation process, informed by ADAPTE and the GRADE approach in the context of adapting thrombosis guidelines. The RAPADAPTE framework consists of 12 steps based on ADAPTE and using synthesized evidence databases, retrospectively derived from the experience of producing a high-quality guideline for the treatment of breast cancer with limited resources in Costa Rica. The RCN outlines five key steps strategy for adaptation of guidelines to the local context. The SGR method consists of nine steps and takes into consideration both methodological gaps and context-specific normative issues in source guidelines. We identified through searching personal files two abandoned methods. CONCLUSION We identified and described eight proposed frameworks for the adaptation of health-related guidelines. There is a need to evaluate these different frameworks to assess rigor, efficiency, and transparency of their proposed processes.

Methods used in adaptation of health–related guidelines: A systematic survey

Background Adaptation refers to the systematic approach for considering the endorsement or modification of recommendations produced in one setting for application in another as an alternative to de novo development. Objective To describe and assess the methods used for adapting health–related guidelines published in peer–reviewed journals, and to assess the quality of the resulting adapted guidelines. Methods We searched Medline and Embase up to June 2015. We assessed the method of adaptation, and the quality of included guidelines. Results Seventy–two papers were eligible. Most adapted guidelines and their source guidelines were published by professional societies (71% and 68% respectively), and in high–income countries (83% and 85% respectively). Of the 57 adapted guidelines that reported any detail about adaptation method, 34 (60%) did not use a published adaptation method. The number (and percentage) of adapted guidelines fulfilling each of the ADAPTE steps ranged between 2 (4%) and 57 (100%). The quality of adapted guidelines was highest for the “scope and purpose” domain and lowest for the “editorial independence” domain (respective mean percentages of the maximum possible scores were 93% and 43%). The mean score for “rigor of development” was 57%. Conclusion Most adapted guidelines published in peer–reviewed journals do not report using a published adaptation method, and their adaptation quality was variable.

Coordinating the Provision of Health Services in Humanitarian Crises: a Systematic Review of Suggested Models

Background: Our objective was to identify published models of coordination between entities funding or delivering health services in humanitarian crises, whether the coordination took place during or after the crises. Methods: We included reports describing models of coordination in sufficient detail to allow reproducibility. We also included reports describing implementation of identified models, as case studies. We searched Medline, PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the WHO Global Health Library. We also searched websites of relevant organizations. We followed standard systematic review methodology. Results: Our search captured 14,309 citations. The screening process identified 34 eligible papers describing five models of coordination of delivering health services: the “Cluster Approach” (with 16 case studies), the 4Ws “Who is Where, When, doing What” mapping tool (with four case studies), the “Sphere Project” (with two case studies), the “5x5” model (with one case study), and the “model of information coordination” (with one case study). The 4Ws and the 5x5 focus on coordination of services for mental health, the remaining models do not focus on a specific health topic. The Cluster approach appears to be the most widely used. One case study was a mixed implementation of the Cluster approach and the Sphere model. We identified no model of coordination for funding of health service. Conclusion: This systematic review identified five proposed coordination models that have been implemented by entities funding or delivering health service in humanitarian crises. There is a need to compare the effect of these different models on outcomes such as availability of and access to health services.

Validity of tools used for surveying physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical company: a systematic review.

BackgroundThere is evidence that physicians’ prescription behavior is negatively affected by the extent of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies. In order to develop and implement policies and interventions for better management of interactions, we need to understand physicians’ perspectives on this issue. Surveys addressing physicians’ interactions with pharmaceutical companies need to use validated tools to ensure the validity of their findings.ObjectiveTo assess the validity of tools used in surveys of physicians about the extent and nature of their interactions with pharmaceutical companies, and about their knowledge, beliefs and attitudes towards such interactions; and to identify those tools that have been formally validated.MethodsWe developed a search strategy with the assistance of a medical librarian. We electronically searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases in September 2015. Teams of two reviewers conducted data selection and data abstraction. They identified eligible studies in one table and then abstracted the relevant data from the studies with validated tools in another table. Tables were piloted and standardized.ResultsWe identified one validated questionnaire out of the 11 assessing the nature and extent of the interaction, and three validated questionnaires out of the 47 assessing knowledge, beliefs and attitudes of physicians toward the interaction. None of these validated questionnaires were used in more than one survey.ConclusionThe available supporting evidence of the issue of physicians’ interaction with pharmaceutical company is of low quality. There is a need for research to develop and validate tools to survey physicians about their interactions with pharmaceutical companies.