Abstract
Objectives
The authors sought to ascertain the details of medical school policies about relationships between drug companies and medical students as well as student affairs deans’ attitudes about these interactions.
Methods
In 2005, the authors surveyed deans and student affairs deans at all U.S. medical schools and asked whether their schools had a policy about relationships between drug companies and medical students. They asked deans at schools with policies to summarize them, queried student affairs deans regarding their attitudes about gifts, and compared their attitudes with those of students who were studied previously.
Results
Independently of each other, 114 out of 126 deans (90.5%) and 114 out of 126 student affairs deans (90.5%) responded (identical numbers are not misprints). Ten schools had a policy regarding relationships between medical students and drug company representatives. Student affairs deans were much more likely than students to perceive that gifts were inappropriate.
Conclusion
These 2005 policies show trends meriting review by current medical schools in considering how to comply with the 2008 Association of American Medical Colleges recommendations about relationships between drug companies and medical students or physicians.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sierles FS, Brodkey AC, Cleary LM, et al: Medical students’ exposure to and attitudes about drug company interactions. JAMA 2005; 294: 1034–1042
Wazana A: Physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: is a gift ever just a gift? JAMA 2000; 283: 373–380
Brodkey AC: The role of industry in teaching psychopharmacology: a growing problem. Acad Psychiatry 2005; 29: 222–229
Sigworth SK, Cohen GM: Pharmaceutical branding of resident physicians. JAMA 2001; 286: 1024–1025
Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J, et al: A national survey of physician-industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1742–1750
Bekelman JE, Li Y, Gross CP: Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2003; 289: 454–465
Lexchin J, Bero LA, Djulbegovic B, et al: Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ 2003; 326: 1167–1173
Heres S, Davis J, Maino K, et al: Why olanzapine beats risperidone, risperidone beats quetiapine, and quetiapine beats olanzapine: an exploratory analysis of head-to-head comparison studies of second-generation antipsychotics. Am J Psychiatry 2006; 163: 185–194
Montgomery JH, Byerly M, Carmody T, et al: An analysis of the effect of funding source in randomized clinical trials of second generation antipsychotics for the treatment of schizophrenia. Control Clin Trials 2004; 25: 598–612
Baker CB, Johnsrud MT, Crismon ML, et al: Quantitative analysis of sponsorship bias in economic studies of antidepressants. Br J Psychiatry 2003; 183: 498–506
Safer DJ: Design and reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. J Nerv Ment Dis 2002; 190: 583–592
Melander H, Ahlqvist-Rastad J, Meijer G, et al: Evidence b(i)ased medicine—selective reporting from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical industry: review of studies in new drug applications. Br Med J 2003; 326: 1–5
Taylor MA, Fink M: Melancholia. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006, pp 196–210
Avorn J, Chen M, Hartley R: Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behavior of physicians. Am J Med 1982; 73: 4–8
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: 270–273
Siegel D, Lopez J: Trends in antihypertensive drug use in the United States: do the JNC V recommendations affect prescribing? JAMA 1997; 278: 1745–1748
Schwartz TL, Kuhles DL II, Wade M, et al: Newly-admitted psychiatric patient prescriptions and pharmaceutical sales visits. Ann Clin Psychiatry 2001; 15: 159–162
Schneeweis S, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, et al: A Medicare data base review found that physician preferences increasingly outweighed patient characteristics as determinants of first-time prescriptions for COX-2 inhibitors. J Clin Epidemiol 2005; 58: 98–102
Chew LD, O’Young TS, Hazlet TK, et al: A physician survey of the effect of drug sample availability on physicians’ behavior. J Gen Int Med 2000; 15: 478–483
Mintzes B, Barer ML, Kravitz RL, et al: How does direct-to-consumer advertising (DTCA) affect prescribing? A survey in primary care environments with and without legal DTCA. Can Med Assn J 2003; 169: 405–412
Chren MM, Landefeld S: Physicians’ behavior and their interactions with drug companies: a controlled study of physicians who requested additions to a hospital drug formulary. JAMA 1994; 271: 684–689
Studdert DM, Mello MM, Brennan TA: Financial conflicts of interest in physicians’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry—self-regulation in the shadow of federal prosecution. N Eng J Med 2004; 351: 1891–1900
American Medical Student Association: Principles regarding pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Available at www.amsa.org/about/ppp/pharm.cfm
Brennan TA, Rothman DJ, Blank L, et al: Health industry practices that create conflicts of interest: a policy proposal for academic medical centers. JAMA 2006; 295: 429–433
Geppert CMA: Medical education and the pharmaceutical industry: a review of ethical guidelines and their implications for psychiatric training. Acad Psychiatry 2007; 31: 32–39
Association of American Medical Colleges: New AAMC task force to examine industry influence on medical education, 2006
Association of American Medical Colleges: Report of the AAMC Task Force on Industry Funding of Medical Education to the AAMC Executive Council. Washington, DC, 2008
Sears J: Implementing the Recommendations of the AAMC Task Force on Industry Funding of Medical Education: A Selected Policy Language Compendium. Washington, DC, Association of American Medical Colleges, 2008
Lo B, Field MJ: Conflicts of Interest in Research, Education and Practice. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies, National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2009
Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education: Principles to guide the relationships between graduate medical education and industry, 2002. Available at http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/positionPapers/pp_GMEGuide.pdf
Psychiatry Residency Review Committee: Program Information Form, 2009. Available at http://www.acgme.org/acWebsite/downloads/RRC_PIF/PIFS_JAN312008/400_PsychiatryContinued_082007_u01312008.doc
American Medical Student Association: AMSA PharmFree Scorecard, 2007. Available at www.amsa.org/prof/pharm-free.cfm
American Medical Student Association: AMSA PharmFree Scorecard, 2009. Conflict of interest policies at academic medical centers. Available at www2.amsascorecard.org
Sierles FS: How to do research with self-administered surveys. Acad Psychiatry 2003; 27: 104–113
Varley CK, Jibson MD, McCarthy M, et al: A survey of the interactions between psychiatry residency programs and the pharmaceutical industry. Acad Psychiatry 2005; 29: 40–46
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We thank Arthur Ross III, M.D., Timothy Hansen, Ph.D., and Cathy Lazarus, M.D., for their advice about the survey’s design and John Calamari, Ph.D., for his advice about the statistical analysis.
Dr. Lynn has provided full disclosure from several public and private sources that are available upon request. At the time of submission, Drs. Sierles, Frank, Shore, Woodard, McCurdy, Morgenstern, Chao, and Mintz disclosed no competing interests.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Sierles, F., Brodkey, A., Cleary, L. et al. Relationships Between Drug Company Representatives and Medical Students: Medical School Policies and Attitudes of Student Affairs Deans and Third-Year Medical Students. Acad Psychiatry 33, 478–483 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.33.6.478
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.ap.33.6.478