Audits & Surveys Company, Inc.: A Study of Physicians' Desk Reference, 27 pages. 1960.
2.
BanksJ. A.: The Drug House Representative, Sociol. Rev.12: 155–168, 1964.
3.
BauerA.: Risk Handling in Drug Adoption: The Role of Company Preference, Public Opinion Q.25: 546–555, 1961.
4.
BauerA., and WortzelL. H.: Doctor's Choice: the Physician and His Sources of Information about Drugs, J. Marketing Res.3: 40–47, 1966.
5.
BeckerM. H.: Differential Education Concerning Therapeutics and Resultant Physician Prescribing Patterns, J. Med. Educ.47: 118–127, 1972.
6.
BelleyB.: Toward a Measure of Pharmaceutical Advertising Effectiveness, J. Business16: 107–114, 1943.
7.
Ben-DavidJ.: Roles and Innovations in Medicine, Amer. J. Soc.65: 557–568, 1960.
8.
BranchF. T.: A Comparison of Direct Mail and Magazine Cost in Pharmaceutical Advertising, J. Business18: 78–95, 1945.
9.
BraucherL.: Population and Prescribing Habits of Physicians, Paper presented before the Academy of General Practice, American Pharmaceutical Association, April 26, 1966, Dallas.
10.
BurkholderD. F.: The Role of the Pharmaceutical Detailman in a Large Teaching Hospital, Amer. J. Hosp. Pharm.20: 274–285, 1963.
11.
CampbellW. H., and JohnsonR. E.: The Innovative Physician, Med. Marketing Media4: 12–14, 1969.
12.
CaplowT.: Marketing Attitudes: a Research Report from the Medical Field, Harvard Bus. Rev.30: 105–112, 1952.
13.
CaplowT., and RaymondJ. J.: Factors Influencing the Selection of Pharmaceutical Products, J. Marketing19: 18–23, 1954.
14.
ChayatteC., and MorganM.: Physician Attitudes Toward Detailmen, Professional Research Analysts, Chicago. 52 pages, 1961. Major findings of this study are reported in: Anon: Detailing is Here to Stay, Med. Marketing pages 8-12, 1961.
15.
CluteK. F.: The General Practitioner: a Study of Medical Education and Practice in Ontario and Nova Seotia, University of Toronto Press, Toronto, 1963.
16.
ColemanJ. S., KatzE., and MenzelH.: The Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians, Sociometry20: 253–270, 1957.
17.
ColemanJ. S., KatzE., and MenzelH.: Medical Innovation—a Diffusion Study, Bobbs-Merrill, Indianapolis, 1966.
18.
ColemanJ. S., MenzelH., and KatzE.: Social Processes in Physicians' Adoption of a New Drug, J. Chronic Dis.9: 1–19, 1959.
19.
Committee of Enquiry into the Relationship of the Pharmaceutical Industry with the National Health Service 1966-67: Report. (Lord Sainsbury, Chairman) Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, 1967.
20.
DichterE.: A Research Study on Pharmaceutical Advertising, 54 pages, Pharmaceutical Advertising Club, New York. 1955.
21.
DichterE.: How Word-of-Mouth Advertising Works, Harvard. Bus. Rev.44: 147–152, 1966.
22.
DoneA.: Differences between Advertised and Medical Uses of Drugs, J. Advertising Res.1: 18–21, 1960.
23.
DowlingH. F.: Medicines for Man, Knopf, New York, 1970.
24.
DresdenM.: Are Physicians Receptive to Pharmaceutical Promotion by Direct Mail?Fisher-Stevens, Inc., Clifton, New Jersey. 20 pages, 1960.
25.
DunlopD. M.: A Survey of Prescribing in Scotland in 1951, Brit. Med. J.1: (Supplement to no. 2513) 694–697 (March 21), 1953.
26.
EimerlT. S.: The Pattern of Prescribing, J. College Gen. Pract.5: 468–479, 1962.
27.
FerberR., and WalesH. G.: The Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Advertising: a Case Study, J. Marketing22: 395–407, 1958.
28.
FerberR., and WalesH. F.: The Effectiveness of Pharmaceutical Promotion, 65 pages. University of Illinois, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Bulletin series no. 83, Urbana, Illinois, 1958.
29.
FliegelF. C., and KivlinJ. E.: Attributes of Innovations as Factors in Diffusion, Amer. J. Sociol.72: 235–248, 1966.
30.
FurstenburgF. F.: Prescribing, an Index to Quality of Medical Care: a Study of the Baltimore City Medical Care Program, Amer. J. Public Health43: 1299–1309, 1953.
31.
GaffinB., and Associates: A Study of Medical Advertising and the American Physician. Part II: The Physicians' Viewpoint, Chicago, 136 pages, August 31, 1953. Statistics from the study are available as a separate publication: Summary tables: survey of practicing physicians in the United States. The study results appeared later as: Journal of the American Medical Association Marketing Data. Reports 1-20, beginning in 1954.
32.
GaffinB., and Associates: The Fond du Lac Study, American Medical Association, Chicago. 53 pages, 1956. This also appeared as: American Medical Association: Effectiveness of Promotion in a Medical Marketing Area, Journal of the American Medical Association, Chicago, 1956.
33.
GaffinB., and Associates: Attitudes of U.S. Physicians toward the American Pharmaceutical Industry, American Medical Association, Chicago. 50 pages plus appendices. 1958.
34.
GarnerD. D.: A Study of Drug Utilization Patterns through Prescription Analysis, (Ph.D. dissertation) University of Mississippi, University, 1971.
HamptonJ.: An Analysis of the Relationship between Variations in Promotion and Sales of Ethical Pharmaceutical Products, Chapter I. Measurement of Advertising effectiveness: Modern Med. Topics23, no. 4, not paginated. (April) 1962. 7 pages. Chapter II. Methods of Medical Promotion: Ibid. 23, no. 5: 1-7 (May) 1962. Chapter III. Summary of Previous Studies: Ibid. 23, no. 6: (not paginated) (June) 1962. 4 pages. Chapter IV. Analysis of Promotion and Sales Data: Ibid. 23, no. 7: (not paginated) (July) 1962. 10 pages. Chapter V. Summary, Conclusions, and Recommendations: Ibid. 23, no. 8: (not paginated) (August) 1962. 3 pages.
37.
HarrisJ. J.: Survey of Medical Communication Sources Available for Continuing Physician Education, J. Med. Educ.41: 737–755, 1966.
Henley, E. S.: The Dissemination of Drug Information: a Study of the Methods by which Drug Information is Communicated to Physicians, (M. A. thesis) University of Iowa, Iowa City, 1967. Subsequently appeared, in part, as: HenleyS., TesterW. W., and KnappR.: Dissemination of Drug Information, Hospitals42: 99–103, 1968.
40.
HubbardW.: Percentage of Distribution of Promotional Results for Three Commercial Media, Mod. Med. Topics16: 14–15, 1955.
41.
HubbardW.: Medical Service Center Markets in the United States, Mod. Medl. Topics16: 1–6, 1955.
42.
JeuckJ. E.: Direct-Mail Advertising to Doctors, J. Business13: 17–38, 1940.
43.
JoyceC. R. B., LastJ. M., and WeatherallM.: Personal Factors as a Cause of Differences in Prescribing by General Practitioners, Brit. J. Prev. Soc. Med.22: 170–177, 1968.
44.
KatzE.: The Social Itinerary of Technical Change: Two Studies on the Diffusion of Innovation, Human Organization20: 70–82, 1961.
45.
KatzE.: The Two-Step Flow of Communication: an Up-to-Date Report on an Hypothesis, Public Opinion Q.21: 61–78, 1957.
46.
KatzE., LevinM. L., and HamiltonH.: Traditions of Research on the Diffusion of Innovations, Amer. Sociol. Rev.28: 237–252, 1963.
47.
KingD. C.: Marketing Prescription Drugs, Michigan Business Reports Number 56, Bureau of Business Research, Graduate School of Business Administration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1968.
48.
KleinW. S.: Certified Medical Representatives, J. Amer. Pharm. Assoc.NS7: 532–534, 540, 541, 1967.
49.
KnappD. E., and OeltjenP. D.: The Benefits-to-Risks Ratio as a Factor in Drug Choice by Physicians, Ohio State University Research Foundation, Columbus, 1971.
50.
LazarsfeldP. F., BerelsonB., and GaudetH.: The People's Choice, 2nd ed. Columbia University Press, New York, 1948.
51.
LeeJ. A. H., WeatherallM., and DraperP.: Prescribing and Other Aspects of General Practice in Three Towns, Proc. R. Soc. Med.57: 1041–1048, 1964.
52.
MartinJ. P.: Social Aspects of Prescribing, William Heinemann Ltd., Melbourne, 1957.
53.
McLaughlinC. P., and PenchanskyR.: Diffusion of Innovation in Medicine: a Problem of Continuing Medical Education, J. Med. Educ.40: 437–447, 1965.
54.
MenzelH.: Public and Private Conformity under Different Conditions of Acceptance in the Group, J. Abnorm. Psychol.55: 398–402, 1957.
55.
MenzelH.: Innovation, Integration and Marginality: a Survey of Physicians, Amer. Soc. Rev.25: 704–713, 1960.
56.
MenzelH., ColemanJ., and KatzE.: Dimensions of Being “Modern” in Medical Practice, J. Chronic Dis.9: 20–40, 1959.
57.
MenzelH., and KatzE.: Social Relations and Innovation in the Medical Profession; the Epidemiology of a New Drug, Public Opinion Q.19: 337–352, 1955-56.
58.
MenzelH., and KatzE.: Comments on Charles Winick, the Diffusion of an Innovation Among Physicians of a Large City, Sociometry26: 125–127, 1963.
59.
Ministry of Health, United Kingdom: Recent N.H.S. Prescribing Trends, Reports on Public Health and Medical Subjects, No. 110.Her Majesty's Stationary Office, London, 1964.
60.
MullerC.: Medical Review of Prescribing, J. Chronic Dis.18: 689–696, 1965.
61.
National Research Company: Physicians' Desk Reference, 14 pages. 1957.
62.
NithmanC. J., ParkhurstY. E., and SommersE. B.: Physicians' Prescribing Habits: Effects of Medicare, J. Amer. Med. Assoc.217: 585–587, 1971.
63.
NoyesD.: Your Share of Disposable Professional Time, Mod. Med. Topics17: not paginated, 3 pages, issue no. 7, June, 1956.
64.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association: Survey of Physicians: Opinion on Means of Obtaining Comprehensive Drug Information, 20 pages. Dec. 21, 1960.
65.
Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association: News release, Washington, D. C, July 12, 1968. Information taken from this news release may be found inJ. Amer. Pharm. Assoc.NS8: 516, 1968.
66.
Piecoro, J.: An Evaluation of the Pharmacist Serving as a Source of Drug Information to the Physician. (M.S. Thesis, College of Pharmacy) Ohio State University, Columbus, 1966. Subsequently published in modified form as: PiecoroJ. J., WolfH. H., and KnappD. A.: A Pharmacist on Hospital Ward Rounds, J. Amer. Pharm. Assoc.NS7: 630–633, 1967.
67.
Politz, Alfred, Media Studies: The Advertising Page Audience of Six Medical Publications, a condensed report prepared by Medical Economics, 1967.
68.
PolitzAlfred, Media Studies: The Important Thousands, Modern Medicine/Politz Study on Advertising Effectiveness, 1968.
69.
RandR. B.: Pharmaceutical Advertising to Doctors. J. Bus.14: 150–168, 1941.
70.
RehderR. R.: The Role of the Detail Man in the Diffusion and Adoption of an Ethical Pharmaceutical Innovation within a Single Medical Community, (Ph.D. dissertation) Palo' Alto, Stanford University, 1961. The main conclusions of this study were reported in: Rehder, R. R.: Communication and Opinion Formation within a Medical Community: the Significance of the Detailman, Acad. Management J.8: 282–291, 1965.
71.
RogersM.: Diffusion of Innovations, Free Press of Glencoe.New York, 1962.
72.
RosnerM. M.: Organizational Influences on Hospital Adoption of New Drugs, (Ph.D. dissertation) University of Chicago, Chicago, 1965. Subsequently reported, in part, in: Rosner, M. M.: Economic Determinants of Organizational Innovation, Admin. Science Q.12: 614–625, 1968.
73.
RyanB., and GrossN. C.: The diffusion of Hybrid Seed Corn in Two Iowa Communities, Rural Sociol.8: 15–24, 1943.
74.
StolleyP. D., and LasagnaL.: Prescribing Patterns of Physicians, J. Chronic Dis.22: 395–405, 1969.
75.
Task Force on Prescription Drugs: Report and Recommendations, second interim report.Government Printing Office, Washington, 1968.
76.
WilkeningE. A.: Acceptance of Improved Farm Practices, North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh. Technical Bulletin 98, 1952.
77.
WilsonC. W. M.: Assessment of Prescribing: a Study in Operational Research, In: Problems and Progress in Medical Care, Oxford University Press, London, 1964.
78.
WilsonC. W. M.: Therapeutic Sources for Prescribing in Great Britain, J. New Drugs3: 276–286, 1963.
79.
WilsonC. W. M.: Pattern of Prescribing in General Practice, Brit. Med. J.2: 604–607, 1963.
80.
WilsonC. W. M.: Influences of Different Sources of Therapeutic Information on Prescribing by General Practitioners, Brit. Med. J.2: 599–604, 1963.
81.
WmickC.: The Diffusion of an Innovation among Physicians in a Large City, Sociometry24: 384–396, 1961.