使用世界卫生组织伦理标准和三级护理医院临床医生的认知对药物宣传文献的批判性评价

IF 0.4 Q4 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
A. Kaur, Shweta Singla, Mandeep Kaur, Jasninder Singh
{"title":"使用世界卫生组织伦理标准和三级护理医院临床医生的认知对药物宣传文献的批判性评价","authors":"A. Kaur, Shweta Singla, Mandeep Kaur, Jasninder Singh","doi":"10.1177/0976500X231164812","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective To evaluate the rationality of drug promotional literature (DPL) using World Health Organization (WHO) ethical criteria and to evaluate the perception of clinicians regarding DPLs using prevalidated criteria. Methods The promotional material was collected at a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of 3 months. The perception of different prescribers has been changed. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Results 191 DPLs were collected from various outpatient departments at a tertiary care hospital. The information regarding brand name, generic name, and active ingredients was mentioned in 100% of the collected material. Therapeutic uses of the promotional agents were mentioned in only 60.20%; references were cited in only 15.18%. The adverse effects were listed in only 17.80% of the DPLs. The perception regarding DPLs was gathered from 27 physicians at the same institute. The percentage of clinicians who were aware of the WHO criteria used for analyzing DPL was only 37.03%. All healthcare workers have agreed on the necessity of including critical appraisal of the DPLs in the undergraduate curriculum.","PeriodicalId":16761,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics","volume":"14 1","pages":"41 - 46"},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Critical Evaluation of Drug Promotional Literature Using WHO Ethical Criteria and Perception of Clinicians at a Tertiary Care Hospital\",\"authors\":\"A. Kaur, Shweta Singla, Mandeep Kaur, Jasninder Singh\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/0976500X231164812\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Objective To evaluate the rationality of drug promotional literature (DPL) using World Health Organization (WHO) ethical criteria and to evaluate the perception of clinicians regarding DPLs using prevalidated criteria. Methods The promotional material was collected at a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of 3 months. The perception of different prescribers has been changed. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Results 191 DPLs were collected from various outpatient departments at a tertiary care hospital. The information regarding brand name, generic name, and active ingredients was mentioned in 100% of the collected material. Therapeutic uses of the promotional agents were mentioned in only 60.20%; references were cited in only 15.18%. The adverse effects were listed in only 17.80% of the DPLs. The perception regarding DPLs was gathered from 27 physicians at the same institute. The percentage of clinicians who were aware of the WHO criteria used for analyzing DPL was only 37.03%. All healthcare workers have agreed on the necessity of including critical appraisal of the DPLs in the undergraduate curriculum.\",\"PeriodicalId\":16761,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"41 - 46\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/0976500X231164812\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/0976500X231164812","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的采用世界卫生组织(WHO)伦理标准评价药品宣传文献(DPL)的合理性,并采用预验证标准评价临床医生对DPL的认知。方法在某三级教学医院收集宣传品,为期3个月。不同开处方者的看法已经改变。采用描述性分析对数据进行分析。结果在某三级医院门诊共收集住院病人191例。关于品牌名称、通用名称和有效成分的信息在收集的材料中100%被提及。只有60.20%的人提到了促销剂的治疗用途;文献引用率仅为15.18%。不良反应仅在17.80%的dpl中列出。对dpl的看法收集了来自同一研究所的27名医生。了解用于DPL分析的who标准的临床医生比例仅为37.03%。所有医护人员都同意在本科课程中对dpl进行批判性评估的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Critical Evaluation of Drug Promotional Literature Using WHO Ethical Criteria and Perception of Clinicians at a Tertiary Care Hospital
Objective To evaluate the rationality of drug promotional literature (DPL) using World Health Organization (WHO) ethical criteria and to evaluate the perception of clinicians regarding DPLs using prevalidated criteria. Methods The promotional material was collected at a tertiary care teaching hospital over a period of 3 months. The perception of different prescribers has been changed. The data were analyzed using descriptive analysis. Results 191 DPLs were collected from various outpatient departments at a tertiary care hospital. The information regarding brand name, generic name, and active ingredients was mentioned in 100% of the collected material. Therapeutic uses of the promotional agents were mentioned in only 60.20%; references were cited in only 15.18%. The adverse effects were listed in only 17.80% of the DPLs. The perception regarding DPLs was gathered from 27 physicians at the same institute. The percentage of clinicians who were aware of the WHO criteria used for analyzing DPL was only 37.03%. All healthcare workers have agreed on the necessity of including critical appraisal of the DPLs in the undergraduate curriculum.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
37
×
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