Physicians' drug prescribing habits are not adequate. This paper gives examples from Finland suggesting that information given by drug industry is likely to create and reinforce poor prescribing. Results from four different studies looking at the content of the Finnish commercial drug catalogues suggest that physicians relying on them may be led astray. Studies on drug representatives' presentations in 1975 and 1986 showed that negative aspects of drugs were often omitted. The confusion created by the double name system (trade names and generic names) is illustrated by a survey, showing that physicians did not often know the generic equivalents of the trade names and vice versa. At the end, predictions of possible changes in commercial drug information are presented.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllozaJ. L.LasagnaL.1983A comparison of drug product information in four national compendia. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.33:269–277.
2.
Anonymous1983Doctors and the drug industry. Br. Med. J. 286:579–580.
3.
BeardshawV.1983Prescription for change. The Hague: International Organization of Consumer Unions.
4.
BergmanU.1979International comparison of drug utilization: Use of antidiabetic drugs in seven European countries. In: BergmanU., (ed.): Studies in Drug Utilization. Copenhagen: WHO, 147–162.
5.
BironP.1973A hopefully biased pilot survey of physician's knowledge of the content of drug combinations. Can. Med. Assoc. J. 109:35–39.
ChetleyA.GilbertD.1986Problem Drugs. The Hague: Health Action International.
8.
Dag Hammarskjöld Foundation1985Another Development in Pharmaceuticals. Development Dialogue 2. Uppsala.
9.
DittmerI.1975Drug Information System Provided by a Transnational Pharmaceutical Firm for Use by the Practicing Physician. Drug Info. J. 9:27–29.
10.
FergusonA. E.1981Commercial Pharmaceutical Medicine and Medicalization: A case study from El Salvador. Cult. Med. Psychiatry5:105–34.
11.
Helling-BordaM.1983Drug Selection, a Way to Better Therapy. J. Soc. Admin. Pharm.1:124–29.
12.
HemminkiE.1974The Effect of a Doctor's Personal Characteristics and Working Circumstances on the Prescribing of Psychotropic Drugs. Med. Care12:351–57.
13.
HemminkiE.1975The Role of Prescriptions in Therapy. Med. Care13:150–59.
14.
HemminkiE.1977aContent Analysis of Drug Detailing by Pharmaceutical Representatives. Med. Educ.11:210–15.
15.
HemminkiE.1977bPolypharmacy Among Psychiatric Patients. Acta Psychiatr. Scand.56:347–56.
16.
HemminkiE.1984Diuretics in Pregnancy: A case study of a worthless therapy. Soc. Sci. Med.18:1011–18.
17.
HemminkiE.1985Sivuvaikutusten ilmoittaminen Pharmaca Fennicassa—eri rinnakkaisvalmisteiden vertailu. Suomen Lääkärilehti40:2464–66.
18.
HemminkiE.EnlundH.HellevuoK.LaurilaR.TurakkaH.1984Trade names and generic names—problems for prescribing physicians. Scand. J. Prim. Health Care2:84–87, and 4:191.
19.
HemminkiE.ForemanH.HemminkiK.1974Prescription of Antimicrobial Drugs by General Practitioners. Infection2:203–6.
20.
HemminkiE.PesonenT.1977aThe Function of Drug Company Representatives. Scand. J. Soc. Med.5:105–114.
21.
HemminkiE.PesonenT.1977bAn inquiry into associations between leading physicians and the drug industry in Finland. Soc. Sci. Med.11:501–6.
22.
HemminkiE.PesonenT.BruunK.1981Sales of Psychotropic Drugs in the Nordic Countries. Soc. Sci. Med.15A:589–97.
23.
ImpivaaraO.1986Utilization of cardiac glycosides in Finland. Turku, Finland: Publications of the Social Insurance Institute, Publ. ML:55.
24.
ImpivaaraO.IisaloE.AromaaA.MaatelaJ.ReunanenA.1986Overprescription and underprescription of digitalis. Acta Med. Scand.219:455–60.
25.
JensenT. Q.PesonenT.1983Indications for Use of Psychotropic Drugs. In: BruunK. (ed.). Controlling Psychotropic Drugs. The Nordic Experience. London: Croom Helm, 166–179.
