Prescribing new drugs: a survey of hospital consultants in the West Midlands

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

BACKGROUND

There 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.

OBJECTIVE

To 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.

METHODS

We 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.

RESULTS

We 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.

CONCLUSION

The 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.

Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines: a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

The successful diffusion of new drugs is crucial for both pharmaceutical companies and patients-and of wider stakeholder concern, including for the funding of healthcare provision. Micro-level characteristics (the socio-demographic and professional characteristics of medical professionals), meso-level characteristics (the prescribing characteristics of doctors, the marketing efforts of pharmaceutical companies, interpersonal communication among doctors, drug attributes, and the characteristics of patients), and macro-level characteristics (government policies) all influence the diffusion of new drugs. This systematic literature review examines the micro- and meso-level characteristics of early prescribers of newly introduced drugs. Understanding the characteristics of early adopters may help to speed up the diffusion process, promote cost-efficient prescribing habits, forecast utilisation, and develop targeted intervention strategies.

METHODS

The PubMed and Scopus electronic databases were chosen for their extensive coverage of the pertinent literature and used to identify 205 potentially relevant studies by means of a four-layered search string. The 35 studies deemed eligible were then synthetized carefully and critically, to extract variables relevant to this review.

RESULTS

Early adoption of new drugs is not a personal trait, independent of drug type, but early adopters share both micro- and meso-level characteristics. At prescriber level, doctors' interest in particular therapeutic areas, participation in clinical trials, and volume of prescribing-either in total or within the therapeutic class of the new drug-increase the likelihood of early adoption. The marketing efforts of pharmaceutical companies and doctors' professional and social interactions leading to prescribing contagion are very powerful predictors of new drug uptake. At patient level, doctors with younger patients, patients with higher socioeconomic statuses and/or patients with poorer health statuses are more inclined to prescribe new drugs early. In contrast, the socio-demographic characteristics of prescribers and many practice-related factors play little role in the adoption process.

CONCLUSIONS

The most powerful predictors of new drug uptake include the doctors' strong scientific commitment, high prescribing volume in total or in within the therapeutic class of the new drug, high exposure to marketing, and intense communication with colleagues.

Factors affecting the uptake of new medicines in secondary care - a literature review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The rate of uptake of new medicines in the UK is slower than in many other OECD countries. The majority of new medicines are introduced initially in secondary care and prescribed by specialists. However, the reasons for relatively low precribing levels are poorly understood. This review explores the determinants of uptake of new medicines in secondary care.

METHODS

Nine electronic databases were searched covering the period 1992-2006. Once the searches had been run, records were downloaded and those which evaluated uptake of new medicines in secondary care were identified. UK studies were of primary interest, although research conducted in other countries was also reviewed if relevant. With the exception of 'think pieces', eligibility was not limited by study design. Studies published in languages other than English were excluded from the review. Determinants of uptake in secondary care were classified using Bonair and Persson's typology for determinants of the diffusion of innovation.

RESULTS

Almost 1400 records were screened for eligibility, and 29 studies were included in the review. Prescribing of new medicines in secondary care was found to be subject to a number of interacting influences. The support structures which exist within secondary care facilitate access to other colleagues and shape prescribing practices. Clinical trial investigators and physicians who sit on decision-making bodies such as Drug and Therapeutic Committees (DTCs) appear to have a special influence due to their proximity to their research and understanding of evidence base. Pharmaceutical representatives may also influence prescribing decisions through funding of meetings and academic detailing, but clinicians are wary of potential bias. Little evidence on the influence of patients upon prescribing decisions was identified. The impact of clinical guidelines has been variable. Some guidelines have significantly increased the uptake of new medicines, but others have had little discernible impact despite extensive dissemination. However given the increasing influence of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, guidelines may become more important. The impact of financial prescribing incentives on secondary care prescribing is unclear. Although cost and budget may influence hospital prescribing of new drugs, they are of secondary importance to the safety and effectiveness profile of the medicine. If a drug has a novel mechanism of action, or belongs to a class with few alternatives, clinicians are more likely to consider it favourably as a prescribing option.

CONCLUSIONS

Although price does not appear to be a primary factor behind prescribing decision-making, in secondary care there has long been a historical need for formal purchasing decisions through the DTC, which differentiates it from primary care. This, in addition to increasing pressures for cost-effectiveness within the NHS means that cost will appear more frequently on clinician consciousness. As a result, guidelines are more likely to be implemented using the strong professional networks in existence within secondary care, and although the influence of patients has not been addressed by the literature, they are likely to have an increasing input into the prescribing decision, given the importance of patient involvement in current UK policy.

New drug prescribing by hospital doctors: The nature and meaning of knowledge

In the UK the high cost of new drugs is partly accountable for the growth in spending on prescription drugs. Most prescribing takes place in general practice and the influence of secondary care prescribing on primary care prescribing is well recognized; yet the factors that influence hospital prescribing have been little researched. Drawing on accounts of actual prescribing events from hospital doctors from a range of specialties, we investigated the processes by which new drugs come into practice, from hospital doctors' awareness of new drugs to the assimilation and interpretation of evidential sources. The determinants of new drug prescribing were interconnected within four forms of knowledge: scientific knowledge, social knowledge, patient knowledge and experiential knowledge. Furthermore, the nature of knowledge could only be understood within its situated context. The revelation of multiple and contingent forms of knowledge highlights the problematic nature of knowledge construction within the approaches of evidence-based medicine.

Response rates and representativeness: a lottery incentive improves physician survey return rates

PURPOSE

To test the effect of a AU dollars 2 scratch lottery ticket on response rates to a national mailed questionnaire of Australian general practitioners (GPs) and medical specialists.

METHODS

A randomized controlled trial was conducted and the incentive sent to half of the participants with the first mailing. A single follow-up mailing without incentive was sent to all non-respondents. Survey respondents were then informed of the research question regarding incentives and allowed to withdraw their study data. Differences in response rates between doctors receiving and not receiving the incentive, and between respondents and non-respondents, were examined.

RESULTS

The overall response rate was 47% (443 respondents). Twenty-two respondents (5%) withdrew their data after being informed of the research question. Of the remaining 421 respondents, 233 had received the incentive (response rate 49.7%) and 188 had not (40.1%, p=0.0032). The absolute increase in response rate with the incentive (9.6%, 95%CI 3.2, 15.9) was quantitatively similar in effect to the reminder mailing (11.8%). The incentive had a larger effect among the GP sample compared with specialists (13.4 vs. 5.9%), although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.20). There were no systematic differences in demographic characteristics between respondents and non-respondents.

CONCLUSIONS

Increased response rates associated with a small incentive may reduce the need for a second mailed reminder, but strong views about the use of incentives may negatively influence the participation of some practitioners. While the overall response rate was low, there was no evidence of bias in our sample.