| _version_ |
1860797314251096064
|
| building |
INTELEK Repository
|
| collection |
Online Access
|
| collectionurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072
|
| date |
2024-08-26 20:12:44
|
| format |
Restricted Document
|
| id |
12207
|
| institution |
UniSZA
|
| internalnotes |
1. Mikhael EM. Drug promotion in Iraq and its negative effect on both personal and country budget. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2015a;7(1):1. 2. Chitnis K, Limaye A, Bhosale M. Pharmaceutical promotional literature: opinions of physicians in a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2013;2(5):541–47. 3. Khakhkhar T, Mehta M, Shah R, Sharma D. Evaluation of drug promotional literatures using WHO guidelines. J Pharm Negative Results. 2013;4(1):33–38. 4. Jadav SS, Dumatar CB, Dikshit RK. Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) evaluation as per World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. J App Pharm Sci. 2014;4(6):84–8. 5. Jaykaran, Saxena D, Yadav P, Kantharia ND. Drug promotional literature distributed by pharmaceutical companies: Do they provide enough information to ascertain their validity? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011a;2(3):192–194. 6. Mall SN, Dudhgaonkar S, Bachewaz NP. Evaluation of rationality of drug promotional literature using World Health Organisation guidelines. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(5):267–272. 7. Garje YA, Ghodke BV, Lalan HN. Assessment of promotional drug literature using World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines. Indian J Appl Res. 2014;4(2):3–5. 8. Phoolgen S, Kumar SA, Kumar JR. Evaluation of the rationality of psychotropic drug promotional literatures in Nepal. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2012;2(6):6–8. 9. Jaykaran, Saxen D, Yadav P, Kantharia ND. Metaphors and symbols in drug promotional literatures distributed by pharmaceutical companies. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2011b;1:32–34. 10. World Health Organization. Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion. Resolution WHA41.17 adopted by the Forty-first World Health Assembly, 13 May 1988. Available at: http://apps.who.int/ iris/bitstream/10665/38125/1/924154239X_eng.pdf?ua=1. 11. Abubakar AR, Simbak NB, Haque M. Adverse drug reactions: predisposing factors, modern classifications and causality assessment. Research J Pharm Tech. 2014a;7(9):1091–1098. 12. Krishnamurthy B, Murthy MB. Authenticity of claim made in drug promotional literatures. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(1):57–61. 13. Abubakar AR, Chedi BAZ, Simbak NB, Haque M. Medication error: The role of health care professionals, sources of error and prevention strategies. J Chem Pharm Res. 2014b;6(10):646–51. 14. Goodman B. Do drug company promotions influence physician behavior? West J Med. 2001;174(4):232–233. 15. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290(2):252–255. 16. American Medical Students. An Overview of the Literature: ‘‘Does that One Slice of Pizza Matter ?’’ Available at: http://www.amsa. org/prof/nofreelunch.pdf. 17. Pharmaceutical Representatives: An Evidence-Based Review with Suggested Guidelines for Clerkships Available at. http://www.ncfh. org/pdfs/PIRT9.pdfPharmaceutical Representatives: An EvidenceBased Review with Suggested Guidelines for Clerkships. Available at: http://www.ncfh.org/pdfs/PIRT9.pdf. 18. Jureidini J, Mansfield P. Does drug promotion adversely influence doctors’ abilities to make the best decisions for patients? Australas Psychiatry. 2001;9(2):95–99. 19. Zaki NM. Pharmacists’ and physicians’ perception and exposure to drug promotion: A Saudi study. Saudi Pharm J. 2014;22(6):528–36. 20. Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, McCurdy FA, Mintz M, Julia F, et al. Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey. JAMA. 2005;294(9): 1034–1042. 21. Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, Othman N, Vitry AI. Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’ prescribing: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(10):e1000352. 22. Haque N, Haque M, Sultana R, Kawsar S, Islam MDZ, Chowdhury SN, Anwar AKMN. Teaching medical students the skills required to critically evaluate the drug information sources for rational prescribing – A report of an exercise on evaluation of prescribing information. Bangladesh J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005;21(1):1–4. 23. Salam A, Haque M, Islam MZ, Helali AM, Yousuf R, Yesmin F, Alattraqchi AG, Rao USM. Comparative study of professionalism of future medical professionals among three private medical colleges of Bangladesh. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2013;6(3):170–79. 24. Rahman NIA, Aziz AA, Zulkifli Z, Haj MA, Nasir FHM, Pergalathan S, Hamidi MI, Ismail SB, Simbak NB, Haque M. Perceptions of students in different phases of medical education of the educational environment: Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:211–22. 25. Islam SB, Salam A, Alattraqchi AG, Annamalai L, Chockalingam A, Dali WPEW, Rahman NIA, Abubakar AR, Haque M. Evaluation of doctors’ performance as facilitators in basic medical science lecture classes in a new Malaysia medical school. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:231–37. 26. Mikhael EM. Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of the promotional brochures for the generic pharmaceutical companies in Iraq using World Health Organization guidelines. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015b;7(1):58–61.
|
| originalfilename |
6507-01-FH02-FP-15-03567.pdf
|
| person |
Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20.6.20042
|
| recordtype |
oai_dc
|
| resourceurl |
https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=12207
|
| spelling |
12207 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/view.php?ref=12207 https://intelek.unisza.edu.my/intelek/pages/search.php?search=!collection407072 Restricted Document Article Journal application/pdf Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20 Paper Capture Plug-in with ClearScan 6 1.6 Adobe Acrobat Pro DC 20.6.20042 2024-08-26 20:12:44 6507-01-FH02-FP-15-03567.pdf UniSZA Private Access Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students? National Journal of Physiology, Pharmacy and Pharmacology Background: Drug promotion (DP) in hospitals is growing considerably. High level of competition exists among pharmaceutical companies in the quest for the prescription. However, a large number of medical representatives promote their drugs in an unethical way, which may pose challenges to the physicians for the rational selection of drug, especially young graduates and medical students. DP is carried out mainly through the use of drug promotional literatures (DPLs), which if not regulated may cause harm to the patient and enormous loss of resources from the wrong choice of medication, drug interactions, or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to inadequate or misleading information. Aims and Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the DPLs based on as per WHO criteria 1988. Materials and Methods: A total of 235 DPLs were collected from different public and private hospitals of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. One hundred and forty DLPs that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated according to WHO criteria. Result: Among the 140 DPLs, 58.6% presented single-dose medications and 41.4% presented fixed-dose combinations. However, only 49.3% literatures stated the side effects and major ADRs; only 45% gave precaution, contraindications, and warnings, and only 25% provided the major interactions. In addition, 32.9% literatures made the false claim and catchy statement and 40.7% presented irrelevant pictures. In contrast, 55.7% showed relevant charts and 52.1% had relevant tables. Conclusion: The research finding has shown that none of the DPLs has fulfilled the WHO criteria. They also contain false claim and catchy statement. Henceforth, drug regulatory agencies must work proactively to ensure compliance by drug companies. Therefore, both physicians and medical students require skills on how to evaluate DPLs. 5 4 318-322 1. Mikhael EM. Drug promotion in Iraq and its negative effect on both personal and country budget. Int J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2015a;7(1):1. 2. Chitnis K, Limaye A, Bhosale M. Pharmaceutical promotional literature: opinions of physicians in a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai. Int J Basic Clin Pharmacol. 2013;2(5):541–47. 3. Khakhkhar T, Mehta M, Shah R, Sharma D. Evaluation of drug promotional literatures using WHO guidelines. J Pharm Negative Results. 2013;4(1):33–38. 4. Jadav SS, Dumatar CB, Dikshit RK. Drug promotional literatures (DPLs) evaluation as per World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. J App Pharm Sci. 2014;4(6):84–8. 5. Jaykaran, Saxena D, Yadav P, Kantharia ND. Drug promotional literature distributed by pharmaceutical companies: Do they provide enough information to ascertain their validity? J Pharmacol Pharmacother. 2011a;2(3):192–194. 6. Mall SN, Dudhgaonkar S, Bachewaz NP. Evaluation of rationality of drug promotional literature using World Health Organisation guidelines. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(5):267–272. 7. Garje YA, Ghodke BV, Lalan HN. Assessment of promotional drug literature using World Health Organisation (WHO) Guidelines. Indian J Appl Res. 2014;4(2):3–5. 8. Phoolgen S, Kumar SA, Kumar JR. Evaluation of the rationality of psychotropic drug promotional literatures in Nepal. J Drug Deliv Ther. 2012;2(6):6–8. 9. Jaykaran, Saxen D, Yadav P, Kantharia ND. Metaphors and symbols in drug promotional literatures distributed by pharmaceutical companies. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmacol. 2011b;1:32–34. 10. World Health Organization. Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion. Resolution WHA41.17 adopted by the Forty-first World Health Assembly, 13 May 1988. Available at: http://apps.who.int/ iris/bitstream/10665/38125/1/924154239X_eng.pdf?ua=1. 11. Abubakar AR, Simbak NB, Haque M. Adverse drug reactions: predisposing factors, modern classifications and causality assessment. Research J Pharm Tech. 2014a;7(9):1091–1098. 12. Krishnamurthy B, Murthy MB. Authenticity of claim made in drug promotional literatures. Indian J Pharmacol. 2010;42(1):57–61. 13. Abubakar AR, Chedi BAZ, Simbak NB, Haque M. Medication error: The role of health care professionals, sources of error and prevention strategies. J Chem Pharm Res. 2014b;6(10):646–51. 14. Goodman B. Do drug company promotions influence physician behavior? West J Med. 2001;174(4):232–233. 15. Dana J, Loewenstein G. A social science perspective on gifts to physicians from industry. JAMA. 2003;290(2):252–255. 16. American Medical Students. An Overview of the Literature: ‘‘Does that One Slice of Pizza Matter ?’’ Available at: http://www.amsa. org/prof/nofreelunch.pdf. 17. Pharmaceutical Representatives: An Evidence-Based Review with Suggested Guidelines for Clerkships Available at. http://www.ncfh. org/pdfs/PIRT9.pdfPharmaceutical Representatives: An EvidenceBased Review with Suggested Guidelines for Clerkships. Available at: http://www.ncfh.org/pdfs/PIRT9.pdf. 18. Jureidini J, Mansfield P. Does drug promotion adversely influence doctors’ abilities to make the best decisions for patients? Australas Psychiatry. 2001;9(2):95–99. 19. Zaki NM. Pharmacists’ and physicians’ perception and exposure to drug promotion: A Saudi study. Saudi Pharm J. 2014;22(6):528–36. 20. Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, McCurdy FA, Mintz M, Julia F, et al. Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions: a national survey. JAMA. 2005;294(9): 1034–1042. 21. Spurling GK, Mansfield PR, Montgomery BD, Lexchin J, Doust J, Othman N, Vitry AI. Information from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of physicians’ prescribing: a systematic review. PLoS Med. 2010;7(10):e1000352. 22. Haque N, Haque M, Sultana R, Kawsar S, Islam MDZ, Chowdhury SN, Anwar AKMN. Teaching medical students the skills required to critically evaluate the drug information sources for rational prescribing – A report of an exercise on evaluation of prescribing information. Bangladesh J Physiol Pharmacol. 2005;21(1):1–4. 23. Salam A, Haque M, Islam MZ, Helali AM, Yousuf R, Yesmin F, Alattraqchi AG, Rao USM. Comparative study of professionalism of future medical professionals among three private medical colleges of Bangladesh. Asian J Pharm Clin Res. 2013;6(3):170–79. 24. Rahman NIA, Aziz AA, Zulkifli Z, Haj MA, Nasir FHM, Pergalathan S, Hamidi MI, Ismail SB, Simbak NB, Haque M. Perceptions of students in different phases of medical education of the educational environment: Universiti Sultan Zainal Abidin. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:211–22. 25. Islam SB, Salam A, Alattraqchi AG, Annamalai L, Chockalingam A, Dali WPEW, Rahman NIA, Abubakar AR, Haque M. Evaluation of doctors’ performance as facilitators in basic medical science lecture classes in a new Malaysia medical school. Adv Med Educ Pract. 2015;6:231–37. 26. Mikhael EM. Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of the promotional brochures for the generic pharmaceutical companies in Iraq using World Health Organization guidelines. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2015b;7(1):58–61.
|
| spellingShingle |
Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|
| summary |
Background: Drug promotion (DP) in hospitals is growing considerably. High level of competition exists among pharmaceutical companies in the quest for the prescription. However, a large number of medical representatives promote their drugs in an unethical way, which may pose challenges to the physicians for the rational selection of drug, especially young graduates and medical students. DP is carried out mainly through the use of drug promotional literatures (DPLs), which if not regulated may cause harm to the patient and enormous loss of resources from the wrong choice of medication, drug interactions, or adverse drug reactions (ADRs) due to inadequate or misleading information. Aims and Objective: This study aimed at evaluating the DPLs based on as per WHO criteria 1988. Materials and Methods: A total of 235 DPLs were collected from different public and private hospitals of Kuala Terengganu, Malaysia. One hundred and forty DLPs that met the inclusion criteria were evaluated according to WHO criteria. Result: Among the 140 DPLs, 58.6% presented single-dose medications and 41.4% presented fixed-dose combinations. However, only 49.3% literatures stated the side effects and major ADRs; only 45% gave precaution, contraindications, and warnings, and only 25% provided the major interactions. In addition, 32.9% literatures made the false claim and catchy statement and 40.7% presented irrelevant pictures. In contrast, 55.7% showed relevant charts and 52.1% had relevant tables. Conclusion: The research finding has shown that none of the DPLs has fulfilled the WHO criteria. They also contain false claim and catchy statement. Henceforth, drug regulatory agencies must work proactively to ensure compliance by drug companies. Therefore, both physicians and medical students require skills on how to evaluate DPLs.
|
| title |
Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|
| title_full |
Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|
| title_fullStr |
Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|
| title_full_unstemmed |
Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|
| title_short |
Drug promotional literatures: Educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|
| title_sort |
drug promotional literatures: educative or misleading for young medical graduates and students?
|