The purpose of this work is to identify and understand the preferential hierarchy of values set by the medical profession in the act of prescribing. Our target population consisted of physicians with practice in Portugal. From this universe, a random sample of 102 doctors was selected as the basis for this investigation. To achieve our aim, we used conjoint analysis as the principal statistical tool. Briefly, the main results can be described as follows: statistically significant results demonstrated that great care is taken by physicians to use pharmaceutical products with demonstrably greater effectiveness. Nevertheless, it was also observed that institutional brands play an important role in choosing the product prescribed.
CaplowT.RaymondJ. J. (1954) Factors influencing the selection of pharmaceutical products. Journal of Marketing19: 18–23.
2.
The Medicine Principle defines ‘medical prescription’ as a ‘written document ordered by a physician or, according to special legislation cases, by a dentist or an orthodontist, prescribing one or more medicines,’ which can be used as an order request; the content of the prescription is unknown to the pharmaceutical sales representative who is not allowed to keep it in his possession.
3.
FerberR.WalesH. G. (1958) The effectiveness of pharmaceutical advertising: A case study. Journal of Marketing22: 398–407.
4.
WegnerW. O. (1960) Trends in pharmaceutical advertising. Journal of Marketing24(3): 65–67.
5.
GreenP. E.GoldbergS. M.MontemayorM. (1981) A hybrid utility estimation model for conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing45: 33–41.
6.
GreenP. E.KriegerA. M. (1991) Segmentation markets with conjoint analysis. Journal of Marketing55(4): 20–31.
7.
GonulF. F.CarterF.PetrovaE.SrinivasanK. (2001) Promotion of prescription drugs and its impact on physicians' choice behaviour. Journal of Marketing65(3): 79–90.
8.
McFaddenD. (1974) Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behaviour. In: ZarembkaP., (ed.) Frontiers in Econometrics.New York: Academic Press, pp. 198–272.
9.
NarayananS.DesirajuR.ChintaguntaP. K. (2004) Return on investment implications for pharmaceutical promotional expenditures: The role of marketing – Mix interactions. Journal of Marketing68(4): 90–105.
10.
van der GeerL. A. M.KangisP. (2002) The influence of cost on medical prescriptions: A comparison of the theory of planned behaviour and the composite attitude behaviour model. International Journal of Medical Marketing2(4): 311–327.
11.
AjzenI. (1985) From intentions to actions: A theory of planned behavior. In: KuhlJ.BechmannJ. (eds.) Action Control: From Cognition to Behavior.Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag, pp. 11–40.
12.
The Medicine Principle defines ‘Adverse Reaction’ as ‘any unexpected or dangerous reaction to a drug. An unwanted effect caused by the normal administration of a drug to a human being for prophylaxis, diagnosis or disease treatment or to recover, correct or modify physiologic functions’.
13.
GreenR.JerniganJ. M. (2004) Building brand value. Pharmaceutical Executive, September: 36–46.
14.
HellersteinJ. K. (1998) The importance of the physician in the generics versus trade-name prescription decision. RAND Journal of Economics29: 108–136.
15.
CampbellM. C. (2002) Building brand equity. International Journal of Medical Marketing2(3): 208–218.
16.
BhattacharyaC. B.RaoH.GlynnM. A. (1995) Understanding the bond of identification: An investigation of its correlates among Art Museum Members. Journal of Marketing59(October): 46–57.
17.
BhattacharyaC. B.SenS. (2003) Consumer – Company identification: A framework for understanding consumers relationships with companies. Journal of Marketing67(April): 76–88.
18.
PeppersD.RogersM. (1993) The One-to-one Future. Building Relationships One Customer at a Time.New York: Currency/Doubleday.
19.
JacobyJ.ChestnutR. (1978) Brand Loyalty Measurement and Management.New York: John Wiley & Sons.
20.
PessemierE. A. (1959) A new day to determine buying decisions. Journal of Marketing24(October): 41–46.
21.
ReicheldF. F. (1996) Learning from customer defections. Harvard Business Review74(1): 55–69.
22.
AssaelH. (1998) Consumer Behaviour and Marketing Action.Ohio: South Western.
23.
MossG.SchuilingI. (2004) A brand logic for pharma? A possible strategy based on FMCG experience. International Journal of Medical Marketing4(1): 55–62.
24.
KnappD. (2001) Building and maintaining genuine brands in the world of medicine. International Journal of Medical Marketing1(4): 289–298.
25.
LadhaZ. (2007) Are consumers really influenced by brands when purchasing pharmaceutical products?International Journal of Medical Marketing7(2): 146–151.
26.
FríasD. M. (2000) Marketing Farmacêutico.Madrid, Spain: Ediciones Pirámide.
27.
GreenP. E.DeSarboW. S.KediaP. K. (1980) On the insensitivity of brand choice simulations to attribute importance weights. Decision Sciences11(July): 439–450.
28.
MurriR.MarcotullioS.LupoliP.von SchloesserF. (2006) Is once-daily regimen a key strategy for improving adherence to antiretroviral regimens?Journal of Acquired Deficiency Syndromes42(2): 259–260.
29.
The Medicine Principle states that a ‘Generic medicine must contain the same active ingredients as the original formulation and its bioequivalence to the brand name counterpart must be demonstrated by proper bioavailability studies’.
30.
CattinP.WittinkD. R. (1982) Commercial use of conjoint analysis: A survey. Journal of Marketing46(Summer): 44–53.
31.
AkaahI.KorgaonkarP. (1988) A conjoint investigation of the relative importance of risk in direct marketing. Journal of Advertising Research28(4): 38–44.
