| SHORT COMMUNICATION |
|
| Year : 2016 | Volume
: 5
| Issue : 1 | Page : 45-49 |
|
|
Evaluation of rationality of printed promotional medicine literature
Vipin Kumar Jain1, Shilpa N Kaore1, Hanmant S Amane1, Megha Jain2, Miti Katakwar1, Vijay Thawani1
1 Department of Pharmacology, Peoples College of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
2 Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Peoples Dental Academy, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
Correspondence Address:
Vipin Kumar Jain
Department of Pharmacology, Peoples College of Medical Sciences and Research Center, Bhopal - 462 037, Madhya Pradesh
India
 Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None  | Check |
DOI: 10.4103/2278-344X.173871
|
|
|
Background: Pharmaceutical companies indulge in medicine promotion through printed material which is distributed to the prescribers. The aim of this study was to evaluate the rationality of such printed promotional medicine literature and find if it was in accordance with World Health Organization (WHO) recommendation and assess the promotion in regard to medicine interactions, truthfulness and accuracy of the contents, validity of the references quoted, and other qualitative content.
Materials and Methods: This was an observational, cross-sectional study on 300 printed brochures of modern and herbal medicines collected by the investigators from private practitioners in Bhopal, which were distributed by the medical representatives. These were assessed for complying with the WHO criteria of 1988, medicine interactions, accuracy, consistency, and validity with the quoted reference in the promotional literature. We also assessed whether the quoted study was sponsored, correlation of pictorial content with given scientific data and actual area utilization for the information.
Results: The majority of the brochures were not in accordance with the WHO criteria. The most of the studies quoted in references were of randomized controlled trials, but the data quoted were inconsistent with the original reference. About 18% of the studies focused on the patient-oriented outcome like mortality, whereas 57.7% included disease-oriented outcome. Around 80% of the brochures contained emotionally exaggerated, nonscientific claims. Maximum brochures promoted heir, other branded medicines also.
Conclusion: Pharmaceutical companies followed the WHO guidelines to some extent but not completely to promote their products with commercial intention rather than deliver the scientific content. |
|
|
|
| [FULL TEXT] [PDF]* |
|
 |
|
