Patients down under want greater transparency

We thank Elena Pasca, of Pharmacritique, for alerting us to the results of an interesting study by the Medical Journal of Australia.

In 2007, 906 patients in and around Sydney were surveyed to gauge their perceptions and opinions on doctors and their relationships with the pharmaceutical industry.

Here's what they had to say:

• 76% of patients were unaware of any relationship between their doctor and pharma companies
  
  
• 71% wanted to know if their doctor obtained any benefits in cash or kind from the pharma industry
  
  
• 69% wanted to know if their doctor received financial incentives for research participation
  
  
• 61% wanted to know if their doctor received sponsorship to attend conferences
  
  
• 84% agreed that disclosure of competing interests by doctors is important
  
  
• 80% would have more confidence in their doctors' decisions if interests were fully disclosed
  
  
• 78% believed that this disclosure would help them make better informed treatment decisions
  
  
• 78% supported verbal disclosure during consultations

Call for ban on gifts to British doctors

Medical experts in the UK are calling for an end to gifts to doctors. A new report from the Royal College of Physicians says this would do much to restore patients' faith in prescribers.

According to the report, 'relentless pressure on doctors, exerted by pharmaceutical marketing masquerading as education, is common.' As well as looking at gifts, the report takes a comprehensive look at industry involvement in other areas such as medical conferences, education and research.

Recognising that some consultants would not be able to attend conferences for 'continuing medical education' and improving their skills without drug company support, the report recommends replacing individual sponsorship with an industry-funded pool for doctors to attend events. It also suggests that the National Health Service (NHS) and other medical associations could contribute to these costs.

Among the many issues covered, the report also highlights the industry practice of 'using educational initiatives as promotional tools.' Many undergraduate medical students and doctors in training in the UK are found to lack sufficient 'prescribing knowledge', and 'professional development programmes are too dependent on industry support.' In fact, it is estimated that pharmaceutical companies fund over half of all postgraduate medical education.

In total, the report sets out 42 recommendations on how to improve the relationships between the NHS, academia and industry with the aim of improving patient care and confidence.

As reported last year on this blog, Consumers International (CI) released the results of a survey which found that none of the major drug companies had made a global commitment to disclose their educational grants. Speaking to The Guardian newspaper at the time, CI Head of Campaigns Justin Macmullan said:

"Pharmaceutical companies will tell you that what they are funding is medical education. But our concern is that this is really effective, well-targeted marketing. This throws any notion of impartiality out of the window and jeopardises a doctor's ability to make an informed, balanced decision about the most appropriate treatments."