Giving and receiving of gifts between pharmaceutical companies and medical specialists in Australia
Source: Internal Medicine Journal, Volume 36, Number 9, September 2006 , pp. 571-578(8)
Abstract:Background: This study investigated the `gift-relationship' between pharmaceutical companies and doctors. Methods: The study was based on a survey questionnaire of 823 medical specialists from across Australia. The aim of this study was to investigate gifts offered to medical specialists in Australia by pharmaceutical companies, financial support actively sought by medical specialists for activities other than research and to consider what is ethically appropriate. Results: A high percentage of specialists received offers of food (96%), items for the office (94%), personal gifts (51%) and journals or textbooks (50%). Most specialists were invited to product launches, symposia or educational events (75-84%) and 52% received offers of travel to conferences. A high proportion of offers were accepted (66-79%) except invitations to product launches (49%), sponsored symposia (53%) and offers of travel that included partners (27%). Fifteen per cent of specialists requested financial support from pharmaceutical companies for activities and items, including conferences, travel, educational activities, salaries and donations to specific funds. The study outlined guidelines on gifts from pharmaceutical companies and differing standards applying to gifts and grants for travel. We found that, although most gifts and requests for support complied with professional and pharmaceutical industry guidelines, some - including personal gifts, tickets to sporting events, entertainment and travel expenses for specialists' partners - did not. Conclusion: To ensure that physicians' judgements are free from real or perceived influence from industry and to maintain public trust, we support a shift towards more conservative standards on gifts and support for travel evident in recent guidelines.
Document Type: Research article
Affiliations: 1: School of Public Health and Community Medicine 2: Centre for Values Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney 3: Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medicine and Public Health 4: Department of Pharmacy, School of Biomedical Sciences, Faculty of Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan 5: Merck Sharp & Dohme (Australia), New South Wales, Australia 6: Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Faculty of Medicine, University of New South Wales
Publication date: 2006-09-01