Pharmaceutical promotional literature: opinions of physicians in a tertiary care hospital in Mumbai

Kunal Chitnis, Amod Limaye, Manisha Bhosale


Backgrounds: The aim of this study was to assess physician’s opinion regarding pharmaceutical promotional material and make an objective assessment about their opinion on current drug promotional methods.

Methods: 250 questionnaires were sent to physicians. Questionnaires was based on question assessing physicians opinion about 1) Influence of information provided on their prescription writing pattern. 2) Most common information which they seek for and find missing, was assessed on a Likert scale of 1 to 5 for each type of information 3) Type of promotional material preferred for drug information. 4) Significance of the various types of references cited which was assessed on likert scale of 1 to 5. 

Results: 207 questionnaires were returned. 59.5 % of the physicians were of the opinion that the information provide in promotional literature mostly influences their prescription. Physicians feel that there is minimal information on adverse drug reaction, comparison with other drugs, price, drug interactions and clinical trial results and contraindications.  Likert score of 4.8, 4.7, 4.6, 4.6, 4.5 and 3.9 respectively.  41.07% physicians prefer pamphlets, and leave behind leaflet. Whereas they consider randomized controlled trials, meta-analysis and case controlled or cohort studies as significant references, with likert score 4.9, 4.7, and 4.6 respectively.

Conclusion: There is need for strong regulatory infrastructure and monitoring of the content of pharmaceutical promotional activities. Therefore, in the absence of effective regulations and standards physicians should be aware of the risks of using non independent information sources.


Pharmaceutical promotion, Promotional literature, Information sources, Prescribing influences

Full Text:



Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, World Health Organisation. Endorsed by the 33rd World Health Assembly, May 1986, Resolution No. WHA21.41. Available: Accessed 1 January 2013.

Avorn J, Chen M, Hartley R. Scientific versus commercial sources of influence on the prescribing behaviour of physicians. American Journal of Med 1982;731:4-8.

Levy R. The role and value of pharmaceutical marketing. Arch. Fam. Med 1994; 3:327-32.

Gutknecht D.R. Evidence-based advertising? A survey of four major journals. J Am Board Fam Pract 2001;14:197-200.

Villanueva P, Peiró S, Librero J and Pereiró I. Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet 2003;361:27-32.

K Alam, AK Shah, P Ojha, S Palaian, PR Shanka. Evaluation of drug promotional materials in a hospital setting in Nepal. South Med Review. 2009;2:2-6.

Islam MS, Farah SS. Misleading promotion of drugs in Bangladesh: evidence from drug promotional brochures distributed to general practitioners by the pharmaceutical companies. J Public Health. 2007;29:212-3.

Guidance for Industry Presenting Risk Information in Prescription Drug and Medical Device Promotion: ucm 155480.

DK Rohraa, AH Gilania, IK Memona, G Pervenb, MT Khan, H Zafarb, et al. Critical evaluation of the claims made by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotional material in Pakistan. J Pharm Pharmaceut Sci 2006;9:50-59.

CS Lundsborg, LO Hensjo, LL Gustafscan. Drug information sources: reported preferences by general practitioners. Drug Information Journal 1998;32:777-85.

Layton MR, Sritanyarat W, Chadbunchachai S, Wertheimer AI. Sources of information for new drugs among physicians in Thailand. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29:619-27.

Furtado C, Periera JA. Information sources and prescribing in the Lisbon region. Acta Med Port. 2006;19:301-8.

P. Norris, A Herxheimer, J. Lexchin, P. Mansfield. Drug promotion: What we know, what we have to learn. World Health Organization and Health Action International

Drug promotional practices in Mumbai: a qualitative study. N Roy, N Madhiwalla, S Pai. Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 2007;4:57-61.

Idris KM, Mustafa AF, Yousif MA. Pharmaceutical representatives’ beliefs and practices about their professional practice: a study in Sudan. East Mediterr Health J. 2012;18:821-6.

Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC. The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical sales representatives. Journal of American Medical Association.1995;273:1296.

Joel Lexchin. Analysing Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Medical Journals. Herxheimer 1993.

Cooper RJ, Schringer DL. The availability of references and the sponsorship of original research cited in pharmaceutical advertisements. Canadian Med Assoc J. 2005;172:487-91.

Bhattacharyya T, Tornetta P, Healy WL, Einhorn TA. The validity of claims made in orthopaedic print advertisements. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2003; 85:1224-8.

Mindell J, Kemp T. Evidence based advertising? Only two fifths of advertisements cited published, peer reviewed references. BMJ. 1997;315:1622.

Del Signore A, Murr AH, Lustig LR, Platt MP, Jalisi S, Pratt LW, et al. Claim validity of print advertisements found in otolaryngology journals. Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2011;137:746-50.

Greving JP, Denig P, de Zeeuw D, Haaijer-Ruskamp FM. Claims in advertisements for antihypertensive drugs in a Dutch medical journal. J Hypertens. 2007; 25:713-22.

VV Shetty, AV Karve. Promotional literature: How do we critically appraise? Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 2008; 54:217-21.

Winkelen P, Denderen JS, Vossen CY, Huizinga TW, Dekker FW. How evidence-based are advertisements in journals regarding the subspecialty of rheumatology? Rheumatology 2006;45:1154-7.