Harvey Ken J, Vitry Agnes I, Roughead Elizabeth, Aroni Rosalie, Ballenden Nicola, Faggotter Ralph
School of Public Health, La Trobe University, Plenty Road, Bundoora, VIC 3086.
Med J Aust. 2005 Jul 18;183(2):75-9. doi: 10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06927.x.
To assess pharmaceutical advertisements in prescribing software, their adherence to code standards, and the opinions of general practitioners regarding the advertisements.
DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Content analysis of advertisements displayed by Medical Director version 2.81 (Health Communication Network, Sydney, NSW) in early 2005; thematic analysis of a debate on this topic held on the General Practice Computer Group email forum (GPCG_talk) during December 2004.
Placement, frequency and type of advertisements; their compliance with the Medicines Australia Code of Conduct, and the views of GPs.
24 clinical functions in Medical Director contained advertisements. These included 79 different advertisements for 41 prescription products marketed by 17 companies, including one generic manufacturer. 57 of 60 (95%) advertisements making a promotional claim appeared noncompliant with one or more requirements of the Code. 29 contributors, primarily GPs, posted 174 emails to GPCG_talk; there was little support for these advertisements, but some concern that the price of software would increase if they were removed.
We suggest that pharmaceutical promotion in prescribing software should be banned, and inclusion of independent therapeutic information be mandated.