Skip Navigation


Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on March 8, 2009
Family Practice 2009 26(3):204-209; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmp010
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
26/3/204    most recent
cmp010v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Søndergaard, J.
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Søndergaard, J.
Right arrow Articles by Andersen, M.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.

Impact of pharmaceutical representative visits on GPs' drug preferences

Jens Søndergaarda,b, Kirstin Vacha, Jakob Kragstrupa and Morten Andersena

a Research Unit for General Practice, Institute of Public Health, University of Southern Denmark, Odense
b Research Unit for General Practice, University of Aarhus, Aarhus, Denmark

Correspondence to Jens Søndergaard, Research Unit for General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, J.B. Winsløws Vej 9A, DK-5000 Odense C, Denmark; Email: jsoendergaard{at}health.sdu.dk

Received 1 June 2008; Revised 23 January 2009; Accepted 1 February 2009.


  Abstract

Background. Pharmaceutical representative visits are believed to have substantial impact, but the effects on prescribing patterns have not been systematically evaluated.

Objective. This study investigates how pharmaceutical sales representative visits influenced physicians’ company-specific drug preferences and prevalence of steroid prescribing.

Methods. Observational cohort study in Funen County, Denmark, including 165 general practices visited 832 times by pharmaceutical representatives and 54 080 patients treated with asthma drugs. Visits were conducted from 2001 to 2003. Our main outcome measures were (i) company-specific drug preferences measured as the proportion of dispensings of the promoted drug among all dispensings of fixed combinations of inhaled corticosteroid and long-acting β2-agonists and (ii) the proportion of patients receiving repeated β2-agonist dispensings who were treated with inhaled steroids.

Results. The first visit had a statistically significant effect on the GPs’ drug preference in favour of the marketed drug [odds ratio (OR), 2.39; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.72–3.32]. The effect on drug preference increased further after the second visit (OR, 1.51; 95% CI, 1.19–1.93), while there was no significant change after the third visit (OR, 1.06; 95% CI, 0.94–1.20). Pharmaceutical sales representative visits did not influence the overall treatment pattern with inhaled steroids (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97–1.06).

Conclusions. Pharmaceutical sales representative visits markedly increased the market share of the promoted drug, but only the two first visits had significant impact. Visits had no significant impact on GPs’ overall prescribing of inhaled steroids.

Keywords. Prescribing, epidemiology, family medicine, practice management.

Søndergaard J, Vach K, Kragstrup J and Andersen M. Impact of pharmaceutical representative visits on GPs’ drug preferences. Family Practice 2009; 26: 204–209.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Fam PractHome page
G. Harris
Pharmaceutical representatives do influence physician behaviour
Fam. Pract., June 1, 2009; 26(3): 169 - 170.
[Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.