{"title":"澳大利亚、日本、美国和印度的医药广告法规:综述","authors":"N. Parihar , V.B. Pokharkar , V.L. Gaikwad","doi":"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101139","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The advertising of pharmaceuticals is regulated by specific laws and codes of practice in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The present review focuses on the similarities and differences in the regulations on advertisements for the promotion of pharmaceuticals in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The pharmaceutical advertising regulations for four regions were collected, compiled, and compared to study the similarities and differences therein.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>If an advertisement is issued in breach of the code of practice and law, it is looked after by regulators. The company faces various penalties for non-compliance with the advertisement governing rules. The information required in an advertisement targeting healthcare providers and consumers is strictly regulated and restricted.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There is country to country variations in restrictions imposed over advertising non-prescription, and prescription medicines to the public. Moreover, regulatory agencies have implemented precise laws, rules, and guidance to control social media usage by pharmaceutical companies for advertising purposes.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":37707,"journal":{"name":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","volume":"33 ","pages":"Article 101139"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Pharmaceutical medicine advertising regulations in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India: An overview\",\"authors\":\"N. Parihar , V.B. Pokharkar , V.L. Gaikwad\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jemep.2025.101139\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>The advertising of pharmaceuticals is regulated by specific laws and codes of practice in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India.</div></div><div><h3>Objective</h3><div>The present review focuses on the similarities and differences in the regulations on advertisements for the promotion of pharmaceuticals in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The pharmaceutical advertising regulations for four regions were collected, compiled, and compared to study the similarities and differences therein.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>If an advertisement is issued in breach of the code of practice and law, it is looked after by regulators. The company faces various penalties for non-compliance with the advertisement governing rules. The information required in an advertisement targeting healthcare providers and consumers is strictly regulated and restricted.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>There is country to country variations in restrictions imposed over advertising non-prescription, and prescription medicines to the public. Moreover, regulatory agencies have implemented precise laws, rules, and guidance to control social media usage by pharmaceutical companies for advertising purposes.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":37707,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health\",\"volume\":\"33 \",\"pages\":\"Article 101139\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000982\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ethics, Medicine and Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352552525000982","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
Pharmaceutical medicine advertising regulations in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India: An overview
Background
The advertising of pharmaceuticals is regulated by specific laws and codes of practice in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India.
Objective
The present review focuses on the similarities and differences in the regulations on advertisements for the promotion of pharmaceuticals in Australia, Japan, the United States, and India.
Methods
The pharmaceutical advertising regulations for four regions were collected, compiled, and compared to study the similarities and differences therein.
Results
If an advertisement is issued in breach of the code of practice and law, it is looked after by regulators. The company faces various penalties for non-compliance with the advertisement governing rules. The information required in an advertisement targeting healthcare providers and consumers is strictly regulated and restricted.
Conclusion
There is country to country variations in restrictions imposed over advertising non-prescription, and prescription medicines to the public. Moreover, regulatory agencies have implemented precise laws, rules, and guidance to control social media usage by pharmaceutical companies for advertising purposes.
期刊介绍:
This review aims to compare approaches to medical ethics and bioethics in two forms, Anglo-Saxon (Ethics, Medicine and Public Health) and French (Ethique, Médecine et Politiques Publiques). Thus, in their native languages, the authors will present research on the legitimacy of the practice and appreciation of the consequences of acts towards patients as compared to the limits acceptable by the community, as illustrated by the democratic debate.