Factors That Influence Physicians' Prescribing of Pharmaceuticals: A Literature Review

REFERENCES

• Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. National health expenditures pro-jections: 2001–2011. www.cms.hhs.gov/statistics/nhe/projections-2001/highlights.asp (accessed 2003 Dec 3).
   Google Scholar
• Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Health care costs and financing. Researchers examine drug expenditures and drug formularies. Res Activities [serial online]. 2003 Sept; no. 277. www.ahrq.gov/research/sep03/0903ra32.htm (accessed 2003 Dec 2).
   Google Scholar
• Mehl B, Santell JP. Projecting future drug expenditures-2001. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2001; 58:125–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Merlis M. Explaining the growth in prescription drug spending: A review of re-cent studies. Paper presented at Department of Health and Human Services Conference on Pharmaceutical Pricing Practices, Utilization and Costs. Washington, DC; 2000 Aug 8. aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/Drug-papers/merlis/Merlis-Final.htm (accessed 2003 Dec 5).
   Google Scholar
• Kirk A, Ettner S. Health care costs: Trends and relationship to insurance premiums. www.universityofcalifornia.edu/senate/reports/hccosts.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 3).
   Google Scholar
• Cutler D, McClellan M. Is technological change in medicine worth it? Health Aff 2001; (Sept/Oct):11.
   Google Scholar
• Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC. The accuracy of drug information from phar-maceutical sales representatives. JAMA. 1995; 273:1296–8.
   Google Scholar
• Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Bennett JH. Separating the wheat from the chaff: Identifying fallacies in pharmaceutical promotion. J Gen Intern Med. 1994; 9:563–8.
   Google Scholar
• Friedman J. Pharmaceutical trends: Marketing key topic at conference. Incentive. 2003; 177 (Aug):11. Available at: www.incentivemag.com/incentive/search/article_ display.j sp ?vnu_content_id= 1940259.
   Google Scholar
• Kumar P, Zaugg AM. IIVIS review: Steady but not stellar. Med Marketing Me-dia. 2003; (May):50–63.
   Google Scholar
• Rosenthal MB, Berndt ER, Donohue TM, Frank RG, Epstein AM. Promotion of prescription drugs to consumers. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346:498–505.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reynolds T. Research briefs: Drug ads take increasing-though still small-share of pharmaceutical promotion budget. Focus: News from Harvard Medical, Dental, and Public Health Schools [serial online]. 2002; (Feb 22). Available at: focus.hms. harvard.edu/2002/Feb22_2002/research_briefs.html (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Sherer RA. Does DTC advertising benefit patients? Psychiatr Times [serial on-line]. 2002; 19(May). Available at: www.psychiatrictimes.com/p020501.html (ac-cessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Strongin RJ. Pharmaceutical marketplace dynamics. National Health Policy Fo-rum Issue Brief No. 755. Washington, DC: National Health Policy Forum; 2000. Avail-able at: www.nhpf. org/pdfs_ib/lB755%5FRxMarketplace%5F5%2D31%2D00%2Epdf.
   Google Scholar
• Miller RR. Prescribing habits of physicians: A review of studies on prescribing of drugs. Drug Intell Clin Phann. 1974; 8(2):81–91.
   Google Scholar
• Sorescu AB, Chandy RK, Prabhu JC. Sources and financial consequences of radical innovation: Insights from pharmaceuticals. J Marketing. 2003; 67(4):82–102.
   Google Scholar
• AC Nielsen/HCI. Important sources of medical information [graph]. June 2003. www.perq-hci.com/News/research/important_sources.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 10).
   Google Scholar
• Protocare Sciences. Innovations in physician prescribing. Oakland, CA: California HealthCare Foundation; Oct 2001. www.chcf.org/documents/hospitalslhmovationsIn PhysicianPrescribing.pdf (accessed 2005 Feb 22).
   Google Scholar
• Hensley S. As drug-sales teams multiply, doctors start to tune them out. Wall Street J Online. 2003 June 13. online.wsj.com/article print/0„SB105546495483941400,00. html (accessed 2003 Jul 16).
   Google Scholar
• Elling ME, Fogle HJ, McKhann CS, Simon C. Making more of pharma's sales force. McKinsey Q. 2002; (Summer):86–95.
   Google Scholar
• Kaiser Family Foundation. National Survey of Physicians, Part II: Doctors and prescription drugs. Menlo Park, CA, and Washington, DC: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; Mar 2002. www.kff.org/rxdrugslloader.cfm?url=/commonspotlsecurity/ getfile.cfm&PageID=13965 (accessed 2003 Dec 9).
   Google Scholar
• Avom J, Chen M, Hartley R. Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. Am J Med. 1982; 73(Jul):4–8.
   Google Scholar
• Accenture. Physicians seek more detailed, comparative and customized infor-mation from pharmaceutical reps, Accenture research finds [press release]. 2003 Jul 16. accenture.com/xd/xd.asp?it=enweb&xd=_dyn\dynamicpressrelease_630.xml (ac-cessed 2003 Sept 17).
   Google Scholar
• Health Strategies Group, Inc. PharmaSFE. v 3.2. Spring 2003. Available at: www.healthstrategies.com/products/sfe_res_agenda.html and www.healthstrategies.com/products/sfe_reports.html (accessed 2003 Aug 18). Some of the information came from the author's notes taken during a presentation by Health Strategies Group, Inc., to Abbott Laboratories in 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Chren M, Landefeld CS. Physicians' behavior and their interactions with drug companies. A controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA. 1994; 271:684–9.
   Google Scholar
• Dolovich L, Levine M, Tarajos R, Duku E. Promoting optimal antibiotic ther-apy for otitis media using commercially sponsored evidence-based detailing: A pro-spective controlled trial. Drug Info J. 1999; 33:1067–77. Available at: www.diahome. org/content/abstract/1999/d3341067.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Wazana A. Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: Is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA. 2000; 283:373–80.
   Google Scholar
• Mizik N, Jacobson R. Are physicians "easy marks"? Quantifying the effects of detailing and sampling on new prescriptions. Manage Sci. 2004; 50:1704–15.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Narayanan S, Desiraju R, Chintagunta PK. Return on investment implications for pharmaceutical promotional expenditures: The role of marketing-mix interactions. J Marketing. 2004; 68(4):90–105.
   Google Scholar
• Caudill TS, Johnson MS, Rich EC, McKinney WP. Physicians, pharmaceutical representatives, and the cost of prescribing. Arch Fam Med. 1996; 5(4):201–6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anon. Docs want to hear from knowledgeable reps. Pharm Representative. 2003; (Aug):10. Available at: pharmrep.adv100.com/pharmrep/article/articleDetail. jsp?id=118400.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Consumers have few concerns about how Rx cos. market to docs. Pharm Representative. 2003; (Apr):8. Available at: pharmrep.adv100.com/pharmrep/article/ articleDetail.jsp?id=118353 (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Vicciardo U. The secret weapon in marketing intelligence: Meetings and events analysis is a powerful new tool in researching marketing strategy and success. Med Marketing Media. 1995; 30(Aug):32-6. Available at: www.cpsnet.com/reprints/ 1995/08/secret.html (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Orlowski JP, Wateska L. The effects of pharmaceutical firm enticements on physician prescribing patterns: There's no such thing as a free lunch. Chest. 1992; 102(1):270–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. ACCME annual re-port data 2002. www.accme.org/dir_docs/doc_uploadlf94000bf-al 88-438f-ad8a-d2 8aa506d5b0_uploaddocument.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Anon. CME spending rises after other promos restricted. Washington Drug Let-ter. 2003; (Jan 27). Available at: www.fdanews.com/pub/wd1/35_4/markets/10180-1.html (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. Standards for commercial support. www.accme.org/dir_docs/doc_upload/68b2902a41373-44d1-8725-80a1504e520c_uploaddocument.pdf (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Relman AS. Separating continuing medical education from pharmaceutical marketing. JAMA. 2001; 285(2009–12).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmer AF. Industry strongly supports continuing medical education. JAMA. 2001; 285:2012–14.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. PhRMA Code on In-teractions with Healthcare Professionals. www.phrma.org/publications/policy/2002-04-19.391.pdf (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Research and Markets. Promotion through education: Online continuing medi-cal education and the pharmaceutical industry. www.researchandmarkets.com/reports/ 1034/1034.htm (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Haddad JK. The pharmaceutical industry's influence on physician behavior and health care costs. San Francisco Medicine [serial online]. 2002; 75(6). Available at: www.sfms.org/sfm/sfm602a.htm (accessed 2003 May 29).
   Google Scholar
• Liebman M. Listen up, publishers say-journal advertising sells! Med Marketing Media. 2000; 35(3):89–94. Available at: www.rxpromoroi.org/add_reading/listenup. html (accessed 2003 Dec 10).
   Google Scholar
• PERQ/HCI Research. Journal ad review totals. www.perq-hci.com/News/spending/ jar_totals.html (accessed 2003 Dec 10).
   Google Scholar
• Leffler KB. Persuasion or information? The economics of prescription drug ad-vertising. J Law Econ. 1981; 24(1):45–74.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liebman M. Hard facts about a soft spend: How print advertising pays off. Med Marketing Media. 1997; 32(4):66–74. Available at: www.rxpromoroi.org/add_ reading/print_paysoff.html (accessed 2003 Dec 10).
   Google Scholar
• Rizzo JA. Advertising and competition in the ethical pharmaceutical industry: The case of the antihypertensive drugs. J Law Econ. 1999; 42(1 Pt 1):89–107.
   Google Scholar
• Wilkes MS, Doblin BH, Shapiro NfF. Pharmaceutical advertisements in leading medical journals: Experts' assessments. Ann Intern Med. 1992; 116:912–9.
   Google Scholar
• Sonderegger Research Center, Kaiser Family Foundation. Chapter 3. Factors driving expenditures: Price, utilization, and types of drugs. In: Prescription drug trends: A chartbook. Menlo Park, CA: Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation; Jul 2000: 29–62. Available at: www.kff.org/rxdrugs/loader.cfm?ur1=/commonspot/security/getfile. cfm&PageID=13504 (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Traynor K. Survey finds most Americans aware of drug ads [press release]. 2003 Jan 21. www.ashp.org/news/showArticle.cfm?cfid=23331205&CFToken=667 37426&id=3244 (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Wilkes MS, Bell RA, Kravitz RL. Direct-to-consumer prescription drug adver-tising: Trends, impact, and implications. Health Aff 2000; 19(2):110–28.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Patients asking for drug samples by name. Pharm Representative. 2003; (Mar): 8. Available at: pharmrep.adv100.com/pharmrep/article/articleDetail.j sp?id= 118339 (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Traynor K. FDA survey gauges physicians' opinions on DTC ads [press release]. 2003 Jan 17. www.ashp.org/new s/showArticle.cfm ?cfid=23331205&CFToken= 66737426&id=3242 (accessed 2003 Dec 7).
   Google Scholar
• Gontil FF, Carter F, Wind J. What kind of patients and physicians value di-rect-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. Health Care Manage Sci. 2000; 3;(3):215–26.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. IIVIS insights: The ROT of DTC ads. Med Marketing Media. 2004; 39(3):8.
   Google Scholar
• Hensley S, Whalen J, Abboud L. Demand lags for Viagra and its rivals. Wall Street .I. 2005 Jan 11:B1.
   Google Scholar
• Simons J. A world of hurt. Fortune. 2005; (Jan 10):17–20.
   Google Scholar
• Groves KEM, Sketris I, Tett SE. Prescription drug samples-Does this market-ing strategy counteract policies for quality use of medicines? J Clin Pharm Ther. 2003; 28(4):259–71.
   Google Scholar
• Findlay S. Prescription drugs and mass media advertising. National Institute for Health Care Management. Washington, DC: National Institute for Health Care Man-agement; Sept 2000. Available at: www.nihcm.org/DTCbrief.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 9).
   Google Scholar
• Chew LD, O'Young TS, Hazlet TK, Bradley KA, Maynard C, Lessler DS. A physician survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians' behavior. J Gen Intern Med. 2000; 15:478.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boltri TM, Gordon ER, Vogel RL. Effect of antihypertensive samples on physi-cian prescribing patterns. Fam Med. 2002; 34:729–31.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Study finds problems in M.D.-sales rep relationship. Pharm Representa-tive. 2003; (Aug):6. Available at: pharmrep.adv100.com/pharmrep/article/article Detail.jsp?id=118398 (accessed 2003 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Peppin JF. Pharmaceutical sales representatives and physicians: Ethical consid-erations of a relationship. J Med Philosophy. 1996; 21:83–99.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tenery RM Jr. Interactions between physicians and the health care technology industry [commentary]. JAMA. 2000; 283:391–3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Medical Association. Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs. Opin-ion 8.061: Gifts to physicians from industry. Code of Medical Ethics: Current opinions with annotations. 1998–1999 ed. Chicago, IL: American Medical Association; 1998.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. PhRMA adopts new marketing code [press release]. 2002 Apr 19. www. phrma.org/mediaroom/press/releases/19.04.2002.390.cfm (accessed 2003 Aug 8).
   Google Scholar
• OIG compliance program guidance for pharmaceutical manufacturers. Federal Register. 68:86(5 May 2003):23731.
   Google Scholar
• Anon. HHS issues voluntary marketing guidance. Pharm Representative. 2003; (Jul): 6. Available at: pharmrep. adv 100. com/pharmrep/article/articleDetail.j sp?id= 118486 (accessed 2005 Feb 23).
   Google Scholar
• Anon. Vermont to require reporting of gifts to physicians. Med Marketing Me-dia. 2002; 37(7):6.
   Google Scholar
• Murray D. Gifts: What's all the fuss about? Med Econ. 2002; 79(19):119–20.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Halperin EC, Hutchison P, Barrier R Jr. A population-based study of the preva-lence and influence of gifts to radiation oncologists from pharmaceutical companies and medical equipment manufacturers. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys. 2004; 59: 1477–83.
   Google Scholar
• Gibbons RV. A comparison of physicians' and patients' attitudes toward phar-maceutical industry gifts. J Gen Intern Med. 1998; 13(3):151–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Katz D, Caplan AL, Merz JF. All gifts large and small. Am J Bioethics. 2003; 2(3):39–46.
   Google Scholar
• Cialdini RB. Influence: Science and practice. 3rd ed. New York: HarperCollins College Publishers; 1993.
   Google Scholar
• Neslin S. ROT analysis for pharmaceutical promotion (RAPP): An independent study. Presentation to the Association of Medical Publications, May 2001. Available at: www.rxpromoroi.org/rapp/ (accessed 2004 Oct 28).
   Google Scholar
• Wittink D. Analysis of ROT for pharmaceutical promotion (ARPP): A second independent study. Presentation to the healthcare industry, September 2002. Available at: www.rxpromoroi.org/arpp/index.html (accessed 2004 Oct 28).
   Google Scholar
• Gina' FF, Carter F, Petrova E, Srinivasan K. Promotion of prescription drugs and its impact on physicians' choice behavior. J Marketing. 2001; 65(3):79–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Manchanda P, Chintagunta PK. Responsiveness of physician prescription be-havior to salesforce effort: An individual level analysis. Marketing Letters. 2004; 15(2-3):129–45.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aventis Pharmaceuticals. Influence over physician prescribing practices. In: eManaged Care Trends Digest 2001. www.managedcaredigest.com/edigests/tr2001/ tr2001cOls07g01.shtml (accessed 2003 May 29).
   Google Scholar
• Fillit HM, Futterman R, Orland BI, et al. Polypharmacy management in Medicare managed care: Changes in prescribing by primary care physicians resulting from a program promoting medication reviews. Am J Manag Care. 1999; 5:587–94.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wang YR, Pauly MV, Lin YA. Impact of Maine's Medicaid drug formulary change on non-Medicaid markets: Spillover effects of a restrictive drug formulary. Am J Manag Care. 2003; 9:686–96.
   Google Scholar
• Storms WW. The impact of managed care formularies on the practice of al-lergy-immunology. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol. 1996; 77(Jul):5–6.
   Google Scholar
• Schectman TM, Elinsky EG, Kanwal NK, Ott JE. HMO physician attitudes to-ward drug cost containment strategies. HMO Practice/HMO Group. 1995; 9(3):116–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Cowen ME, Strawderman RL. Quantifying the physician contribution to man-aged care pharmacy expenses: A random effects approach. Med Care. 2002; 40: 650–61.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Report to the President. Pre-scription drug coverage, spending, utilization, and prices. April 2000. aspe.hhs.gov/ health/reports/drugstudy/ (accessed 2003 Dec 10).
   Google Scholar
• US Department of Health and Human Services. Chapter 3: Prescription drug prices. Report to the President. Prescription drug coverage, spending, utilization, and prices. April 2000. aspe.hhs.gov/health/reports/drugstudy/c3.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 10).
   Google Scholar
• Ernst ME, Kelly MW, Hoehns JD, et al. Prescription medication costs: A study of physician familiarity. Arch Fam Med. 2000; 9:1002–7.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Finkelstein JA, Stille C, Nordin J, et al. Reduction in antibiotic use among US children, 1996-2000. Pediatrics. 2003; 112:620–7. Available at: pediatrics.aappublications. org/cgi/content/abstract/112/3/620 (accessed 2003 Sept 2).
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill CD, Bunn DN, Hawkins JR. Stretching the managed care dollar in the new millennium: The practice of detailing primary care physicians. Manag Care Q. 2002; 10(2): 18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Sbarbaro JA. Can we influence prescribing patterns? Clin Infect Dis. 2001; 33(Suppl 3):5240–4.
   Google Scholar
• Steele MA, Bess DR, Franse VL, Graber SE. Cost effectiveness of two interven-tions for reducing outpatient prescribing costs. DICP. 1989; 23:497–500.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Anon. Academic detailing. Oregon Health Forum Newsletter. 2003; 13(Dec):3.
   Google Scholar
• Schwartzman D. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 1976.
   Google Scholar
• Hersh AL, Stefanick M, Stafford RS. National use of postmenopausal hormone therapy. JAMA. 2004; 291:47–53.
   Google Scholar
• Stafford RS, Furberg C, Finkelstein SN, Cockburn IM, Alehegn T, Ma J. Impact of clinical trial results on national trends in a-blocker prescribing, 1996-2002. JAMA. 2004; 291:54–62.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steinke DT, MacDonald TM, Davey PG. The doctor-patient relationship and prescribing patterns: A view from primary care. Pharmacoeconomics. 1999; 16:599–603.
   Google Scholar
• Stolley P, Becker MH, Lasagna L, McEvilla JD, Sloane LM. The relationship between physician characteristics and prescribing appropriateness. Med Care. 1972; 10:17–28.
   Google Scholar
• Shaughnessy AF, Slawson DC, Bennett JH. Teaching information mastery: Evaluating information provided by pharmaceutical representatives. Fam Med. 1995; 27:581–5.
   Google Scholar
• Barrette J. Imperfect attendance. Med Marketing Media. 2004; 39(6):64–6.
   Google Scholar
• Manhattan Research. 2004 a pivotal year for the future of pharmaceutical elec-tronic detailing. Health & Pharma Insight. 2003; (Oct). Available at: www.manhattan research.com/newsletter1003.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 9).
   Google Scholar
• Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ, Wright JA, Garrison MM, Rivara FP, Davis RL. A randomized controlled trial of point-of-care evidence to improve the antibiotic pre-scribing practices for otitis media in children. Pediatrics [serial online]. 2001; 107. Available at: pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/107/2/e15.pdf (accessed 2003 Dec 9).
   Google Scholar
• Allscripts Healthcare Solutions. Pilot results in multi-year TouchWorks con-tract for over 500 HMSA physicians [press release]. 2002 Apr 24. www.allscripts.com/ nwsAHS.aspx?type=l&id=1201 (accessed 2005 Jan 24).
   Google Scholar
• Keys PW, Goetz CM, Keys PA, Sterchele JA, Snedden TM, Livengood BH. Computer-guided academic detailing as part of a drug benefit program. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 1995; 52:2199–203.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shapiro JP, Schultz S. Prescriptions: How your doctor makes the choice. US News World Rep. 2001; (Feb 19):58–61.
   Google Scholar
• Mark TL, S wait J. Using stated preference and revealed preference modeling to evaluate prescribing decisions. Health Econ. 2004; 13:563–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hemminki E. Review of literature on the prescribing factors affecting drug pre-scribing. Soc Sci Med. 1975; 9:11–16.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lilja J. How physicians choose their drugs. Soc Sci Med. 1976; 10:363–5.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harrell GD, Bennett PD. An evaluation of the expectancy value model of atti-tude measurement for physician prescribing behavior. J Marketing Res. 1974; 11: 268–78.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Green PE, Krieger AM. Segmenting markets with conjoint analysis. J Market-ing. 1991; 55(Oct):20–31.
   Google Scholar
• Freeman JK, Barnes JH, Summers KH, Szeinbach SL. Modeling physicians' prescribing decisions for patients with panic disorder. J Health Care Marketing. 1993; 13(1):34–9.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar