Evaluation of drug promotional literatures in a tertiary care hospital setting in South India

Ravi H. Kudthni, F. Ahmed, Sangala Srimanth Madanna, Samba Siva Raju Derangula, Pothuru Anil Kumar
{"title":"Evaluation of drug promotional literatures in a tertiary care hospital setting in South India","authors":"Ravi H. Kudthni, F. Ahmed, Sangala Srimanth Madanna, Samba Siva Raju Derangula, Pothuru Anil Kumar","doi":"10.18203/2319-2003.IJBCP20211648","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: The drug promotional literature is one of many sources for seeking information about the drugs to the busy medical practitioner. The aim of current study was to assess drug promotional literatures as per world health organization, criteria and categorize them and to analyse the claims in presented in DPL. Methods: Current study is a descriptive study in which pharmaceutical promotional materials were collected from selected out-patient departments of a tertiary care hospital, Kurnool. Printed drug promotional literatures for modern drugs were collected and an assessment was made whether the advertisements adhered to WHO criteria for medicinal drug promotion. Results: A total of 271 drug promotional literatures were collected. Information about the single drug was given in 127 (46.9%). 144 (53.1%) DPLs contain fixed-dose combination. Majority of drug promoted in collected DPLs were miscellaneous group 83 (30.8%) followed by antimicrobials 55(20.3%) and blood and cardiovascular drugs 37(13.1), gastrointestinal drugs 23(8.5%), drugs acting on endocrine system 23(84.5%). Generic name was mentioned in 229(84.5%) while brand name was mentioned in 271(100%) of DPL. Conclusions: The study concluded that the drug information provided in the promotional brochures can be incomplete and unreliable. Hence a physician should not rely solely on the DPL provided by medical representatives. All brochures circulated among prescribers must undergo a strict process of assessment regarding information provided, especially related to efficacy and safety.","PeriodicalId":13898,"journal":{"name":"International journal of basic and clinical pharmacology","volume":"16 1","pages":"527"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International journal of basic and clinical pharmacology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.IJBCP20211648","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: The drug promotional literature is one of many sources for seeking information about the drugs to the busy medical practitioner. The aim of current study was to assess drug promotional literatures as per world health organization, criteria and categorize them and to analyse the claims in presented in DPL. Methods: Current study is a descriptive study in which pharmaceutical promotional materials were collected from selected out-patient departments of a tertiary care hospital, Kurnool. Printed drug promotional literatures for modern drugs were collected and an assessment was made whether the advertisements adhered to WHO criteria for medicinal drug promotion. Results: A total of 271 drug promotional literatures were collected. Information about the single drug was given in 127 (46.9%). 144 (53.1%) DPLs contain fixed-dose combination. Majority of drug promoted in collected DPLs were miscellaneous group 83 (30.8%) followed by antimicrobials 55(20.3%) and blood and cardiovascular drugs 37(13.1), gastrointestinal drugs 23(8.5%), drugs acting on endocrine system 23(84.5%). Generic name was mentioned in 229(84.5%) while brand name was mentioned in 271(100%) of DPL. Conclusions: The study concluded that the drug information provided in the promotional brochures can be incomplete and unreliable. Hence a physician should not rely solely on the DPL provided by medical representatives. All brochures circulated among prescribers must undergo a strict process of assessment regarding information provided, especially related to efficacy and safety.
在南印度三级保健医院设置的药物宣传文献的评价
背景:药品宣传文献是忙碌的医生获取药品信息的众多来源之一。本研究的目的是根据世界卫生组织的标准对药品宣传文献进行评估和分类,并对DPL中提出的索赔进行分析。方法:本研究是一项描述性研究,在该研究中,从选定的三级保健医院门诊收集药物宣传材料,库尔努尔。收集现代药品宣传印刷文献,评价广告是否符合世界卫生组织药品宣传标准。结果:共收集到271篇药品宣传文献。127例(46.9%)给出了单药信息。144个(53.1%)dpl包含固定剂量组合。收集到的DPLs中促进药物最多的是杂项类药物83种(30.8%),其次是抗菌素类药物55种(20.3%),其次是血液和心血管类药物37种(13.1%),胃肠道药物23种(8.5%),内分泌系统药物23种(84.5%)。DPL中有229例(84.5%)提到了通用名,271例(100%)提到了品牌名。结论:本研究认为药品宣传手册中提供的药品信息可能不完整且不可靠。因此,医生不应完全依赖医疗代表提供的DPL。处方者之间分发的所有手册必须经过严格的信息评估程序,特别是与疗效和安全性有关的信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信