Uchenna IJOMA, Ikenna ONWUEKWE, Emmanuel ONODUGO, Emmanuel AGUWA, Emmanual EJIM, Cajetan ONYRDUM, Linus ONAH, Emecheta OKWUDİRE, Geraldine UGWUONAH

Effect of promotional strategies of pharmaceutical companies on doctors' prescription pattern in South East Nigeria

AMAÇ: İlaç promosyonları, ayrıntıları pazarlama temsilcileri tarafından belirlenen, çok yönlü hastane ve ofis yaklaşımlarını birleştirilerek gerçekleşmektedir. Nijerya’da konunun doktor reçetelerine etkisini araştıran sınırlı sayıda çalışma mevcuttur. Bu çalışma, güney batı Nijerya’nın Enugu eyaletinde pazarlama politikalarının doktor reçetelerine etkisini saptamak amacıyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. YÖNTEM: Kesitsel tipteki bu çalışma, araştırmacılar tarafından hazırlanan 210 soru formunun Enugu eyaletinde bulunan altı büyük hastanenin doktorlarına dağıtılması yoluyla gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırmanın etik izinleri Enugu’da bulunan Nijerya Üniversitesi eğitim Hastanesi Etik komitesi’nden alınmıştır. BULGULAR: Soru formlarını cevaplama oranı %88’dir, erkeklerin cevaplama oran kadınlarınkinin 2,2 katıdır (E:K=2,2:1). Cevaplayanların çoğunun uzmanlık öğrencisi doktorlar olup (%69), uzman doktorlarda bu oran %7’de kalmıştır. Çıkartmalar, ilaç promo0syonları ve hediyelik eşyalar pazarlama politikasında en sık kullanılan reklâm aracı olarak tespit edilmiştir. Doktorların çoğu (%60) ilaç promosyonlarının etkileyici olduğuna katılmaktadır. Doktorların %87,5’i pazarlama politikalarının yararlarını takdir ettiklerini, %70’i reçete yazmadan önce hastaların sosyo-ekonomik durumlarını göz önünde bulundurduklarını ifade etmişlerdir. Doktorların medikal eğitiminin devam ediyor olması ve sıkı rekabet bu pazarlama politikalarına sebep olarak gösterilmektedir. SONUÇ: Nijerya’da bulunan ilaç firmaları doktorların reçetelerini etkilemek için çeşitli politikalar geliştirmişlerdir. Bu politikalar, sıklıkla başarıya ulaşmaktadır. En çok Reçete yazarken diğer faktörleri de dikkate alanlar söz konusu politikalardan etkilenmektedir.

Güneybatı Nijerya’da ilaç şirketlerinin reklâm politikalarının doktor reçetelerine etkisi

AIM: Drug promotions use multifaceted approaches incorporating hospital and office detailing by marketing representatives. Very few studies exist on their influence on doctors’ prescription pattern in Nigeria. We examined the scope and effects of marketing strategies on the prescription habits of doctors in Enugu, South East Nigeria. METHOD: This was a cross-sectional study; 210 self-administered structured questionnaires were distributed among doctors in six major hospitals in Enugu. Ethical approval was obtained from the University of Nigeria Teaching Hospital Ethics Committee, Enugu. RESULTS: There was 88% response rate, with more males than females (M:F= 2.2: 1). Most were residents-in-training/ house officers (69%) while consultants were 7.1% of the group. Stickers, drug presentations/ launches and personal souvenirs were most commonly employed marketing strategies. Most doctors (60%) attending a drug presentation felt influenced. While 87.5% appreciated the benefits of marketing strategies, about 70% would consider patients’ socioeconomic status before prescribing. Continuing medical education and stiff competition were reasons adduced for the marketing strategies. CONCLUSION: Pharmaceutical companies in Nigeria adopt varied strategies to influence doctors’ prescriptions. Often this aim is achieved. The practice is accepted by most who nevertheless will consider other factors when deciding on what to prescribe.

PDF

___

1. World Health Organization. Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion. Geneva. 1988, p. 5.
2. Adair RF, Holmgren LR. Do drug samples influence residents’ prescribing behavior? A randomized controlled trial. Am J Med. 2005; 118: 881-884.
3. Morgan MA, Dana J, Loewenstein G, Zinberg S. Interactions of doctors with the pharmaceutical industry. J Med Ethics. 2006; 32: 559-563.
4. Castresana L, Mejia R, Aznar M. The attitude of physicians regarding the promotion strategies of the pharmaceutical industry. Medicina (B Aires). 2005; 65(3): 247-251.
5. Madhavan S, Amonkar MM, Elliott D, Burke K, Gore JP. The gift relationship between pharmaceutical companies and physicians: An exploratory survey of physicians. J Clin Pharm Ther. 1997; 22: 207-215.
6. Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC. The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical drug representatives. JAMA. 1995; 273: 1296-1298.
7. Avorn J, Chen M, Hartley R. Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. Am J Med. 1982; 73: 4-8.
8. Osiobe SA. Physicians’ and pharmacists’ drug information sources in Nigeria. Drug Information Journal. 1988; 22: 553-563
9. Ahmad SR, Bhutto ZA. A survey of pediatric prescribing and dispensing in Karachi. J Pakistan Med Assoc. 1990; 40: 126-130.
10. Tomson G, Angunawela I. Patients, doctors and their drugs: a study at four levels of health care in an area of Sri Lanka. Euro J Clin Pharm. 1990; 39: 463-467
11. Chew LD, O’Young TS, Hazlet TK, Bradley KA, Maynard C. A physician’s survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians’ behaviour. J Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15: 478-483.
12. Boltri JM, Gordon ER, Vogel RL. Effect of antihypertensive samples on physician prescribing patterns. Fam Med. 2002; 34(10): 729-731.
13. Symm B, Averitt M, Forjuoh SN, Preece C. Effects of Using Free Sample Medications on the Prescribing Practices of Family Physicians. J Am Board Fam Med. 2006; 19(5): 443-449.
14. Sergeant MD, Hodgetts P, Geoffrey GM, Walker DMC, McHenry P. Interactions with the pharmaceutical industry: a survey of family medicine residents in Ontario. Can Med Assoc J. 1996; 155: 1243-1248.
15. Keim SM, Arthur B, Witzke DB, Dyne P, Fulgniti JW. Beliefs and practices of emergency medicine faculty and residents regarding professional interaction with the biomedical industry. Ann Emerg Med.1993; 22: 1576-1581.
16. Mainous AG, Hueston WJ, Rich EC. Patients’ perception of physicians’ acceptance of gifts from pharmaceutical industry. Arch Fam Med. 1885; 4: 335-339.
17. Banisnath M, Sequiera RP, Shukka VK, Marthur VS. Brand versus generic prescribing: a perception of the Indian cardiologists’ viewpoint. Int J of Clin Pharm Therap Toxicol. 1984; 22: 279-283.
18. Güldal D, Semin S. The influence of drug companies advertising programs on physicians. Int J Health Serv. 2000; 30: 585-595.
19. Pitt L, Nel D. Pharmaceutical promotion toolstheir relative importance. Euro J Mark. 1988; 22: 7-14.
20. Hodges B. interaction with the pharmaceutica industry: experiences and attitudes of psychiatric residents, interns and clerks. Can Med Assoc J 1995; 153: 553-559.
21. Groves KEM, Sletri SI, Tett SE. Prescription sample drugs-Does this marketing strategy counteract policies for quality use of medicines? J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003. 28: 259-271.
22. Hall KB, Tett SE, Nissen LM. Perceptions of the Influence of Prescription Medicine Samples on Prescribing by Family Physicians. Med Care 2006; 44(4): 383-387
23. Landefield CS, Steiman MA. The Neurontin legacy-marketing via misinformation and manipulation. N Eng J Med. 2009; 360(2): 103- 106.