Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship. Chimonas, S., Brennan, T. A., & Rothman, D. J. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22(2):184–190, February, 2007. ![Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship [link]](https://bibbase.org/img/filetypes/link.svg "link")
Paper doi abstract bibtex Background Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction. Objective To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives. Design, Setting, and Participants Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago. Measurements Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care. Results Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients. Conclusions Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.
@article{chimonas_physicians_2007,
title = {Physicians and {Drug} {Representatives}: {Exploring} the {Dynamics} of the {Relationship}},
volume = {22},
issn = {0884-8734},
shorttitle = {Physicians and {Drug} {Representatives}},
url = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1824740/},
doi = {10.1007/s11606-006-0041-z},
abstract = {Background
Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction.
Objective
To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives.
Design, Setting, and Participants
Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago.
Measurements
Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care.
Results
Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients.
Conclusions
Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.},
number = {2},
urldate = {2019-10-08},
journal = {Journal of General Internal Medicine},
author = {Chimonas, Susan and Brennan, Troyen A. and Rothman, David J.},
month = feb,
year = {2007},
pmid = {17356984},
pmcid = {PMC1824740},
keywords = {8 Ignorance and funding bias, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},
pages = {184--190},
}
Downloads: 0
{"_id":"L86jDkyBQjYWygbG2","bibbaseid":"chimonas-brennan-rothman-physiciansanddrugrepresentativesexploringthedynamicsoftherelationship-2007","authorIDs":[],"author_short":["Chimonas, S.","Brennan, T. A.","Rothman, D. J."],"bibdata":{"bibtype":"article","type":"article","title":"Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship","volume":"22","issn":"0884-8734","shorttitle":"Physicians and Drug Representatives","url":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1824740/","doi":"10.1007/s11606-006-0041-z","abstract":"Background Interactions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction. Objective To determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives. Design, Setting, and Participants Six focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago. Measurements Qualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care. Results Physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients. Conclusions Although physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.","number":"2","urldate":"2019-10-08","journal":"Journal of General Internal Medicine","author":[{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Chimonas"],"firstnames":["Susan"],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Brennan"],"firstnames":["Troyen","A."],"suffixes":[]},{"propositions":[],"lastnames":["Rothman"],"firstnames":["David","J."],"suffixes":[]}],"month":"February","year":"2007","pmid":"17356984","pmcid":"PMC1824740","keywords":"8 Ignorance and funding bias, PRINTED (Fonds papier)","pages":"184–190","bibtex":"@article{chimonas_physicians_2007,\n\ttitle = {Physicians and {Drug} {Representatives}: {Exploring} the {Dynamics} of the {Relationship}},\n\tvolume = {22},\n\tissn = {0884-8734},\n\tshorttitle = {Physicians and {Drug} {Representatives}},\n\turl = {https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1824740/},\n\tdoi = {10.1007/s11606-006-0041-z},\n\tabstract = {Background\nInteractions between physicians and drug representatives are common, even though research shows that physicians understand the conflict of interest between marketing and patient care. Little is known about how physicians resolve this contradiction.\n\nObjective\nTo determine physicians’ techniques for managing cognitive inconsistencies within their relationships with drug representatives.\n\nDesign, Setting, and Participants\nSix focus groups were conducted with 32 academic and community physicians in San Diego, Atlanta, and Chicago.\n\nMeasurements\nQualitative analysis of focus group transcripts to determine physicians’ attitudes towards conflict of interest and detailing, their beliefs about the quality of information conveyed and the impact on prescribing, and their resolution of the conflict between detailers’ desire to sell product and patient care.\n\nResults\nPhysicians understood the concept of conflict of interest and applied it to relationships with detailers. However, they maintained favorable views of physician–detailer exchanges. Holding these mutually contradictory attitudes, physicians were in a position of cognitive dissonance. To resolve the dissonance, they used a variety of denials and rationalizations: They avoided thinking about the conflict of interest, they disagreed that industry relationships affected physician behavior, they denied responsibility for the problem, they enumerated techniques for remaining impartial, and they reasoned that meetings with detailers were educational and benefited patients.\n\nConclusions\nAlthough physicians understood the concept of conflict of interest, relationships with detailers set up psychological dynamics that influenced their reasoning. Our findings suggest that voluntary guidelines, like those proposed by most major medical societies, are inadequate. It may be that only the prohibition of physician–detailer interactions will be effective.},\n\tnumber = {2},\n\turldate = {2019-10-08},\n\tjournal = {Journal of General Internal Medicine},\n\tauthor = {Chimonas, Susan and Brennan, Troyen A. and Rothman, David J.},\n\tmonth = feb,\n\tyear = {2007},\n\tpmid = {17356984},\n\tpmcid = {PMC1824740},\n\tkeywords = {8 Ignorance and funding bias, PRINTED (Fonds papier)},\n\tpages = {184--190},\n}\n\n","author_short":["Chimonas, S.","Brennan, T. A.","Rothman, D. J."],"key":"chimonas_physicians_2007","id":"chimonas_physicians_2007","bibbaseid":"chimonas-brennan-rothman-physiciansanddrugrepresentativesexploringthedynamicsoftherelationship-2007","role":"author","urls":{"Paper":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1824740/"},"keyword":["8 Ignorance and funding bias","PRINTED (Fonds papier)"],"metadata":{"authorlinks":{}},"downloads":0},"bibtype":"article","biburl":"http://bibbase.org/zotero-group/science_et_ignorance/1340424","creationDate":"2019-12-04T16:17:27.040Z","downloads":0,"keywords":["8 ignorance and funding bias","printed (fonds papier)"],"search_terms":["physicians","drug","representatives","exploring","dynamics","relationship","chimonas","brennan","rothman"],"title":"Physicians and Drug Representatives: Exploring the Dynamics of the Relationship","year":2007,"dataSources":["zX4acseCDM6D58AW7","NTvuMntpta5z9CAbT"]}