Bunniran Suvapun, McCaffrey David J, Bentley John P, Bouldin Alicia S
Research Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Department of Pharmacy Administration, School of Pharmacy, The University of Mississippi, 128 Faser Hall, University, MS 38677-1848, USA.
Res Social Adm Pharm. 2009 Sep;5(3):262-73. doi: 10.1016/j.sapharm.2008.10.002. Epub 2009 Jan 31.
Six major pharmaceutical products were withdrawn from the market from 2000 to 2006. Little evidence exists in understanding consumer reactions to such events and the influence the withdrawal has on its competitors.
To explore consumers' attribution of blame after pharmaceutical product market withdrawal (PPMW) and its effect on trust.
Subjects were assigned randomly to 4 groups and provided a unique hypothetical PPMW scenario and asked to imagine themselves in the situation described. Each scenario represented a different "distance" from the PPMW (eg, whether subjects were asked to assume they were taking the withdrawn drug or a therapeutic substitute). Blame of and trust in several key professionals/groups were measured.
Closer "distance" to the PPMW resulted in higher blame attributions for the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), pharmaceutical company (Pharma), and the physician. Although the pattern of trust scores did not differ based on "distance," insurance companies and Pharma suffered from low trust, whereas pharmacists and physicians received higher trust ratings. Blaming appeared to be no different between consumers on a withdrawn product and those consumers on a product in the same therapeutic class ("substitute" product).
Substitute products (drugs in the same therapeutic class) appear to be affected in the event of a PPMW, although drugs used to treat the same disease do not appear to be so affected. The difficult-to-explain findings with respect to trust may be accounted for by the fact that trust is more downstream than blame (based on the scenario presentations) and that trust is a complex construct with multiple antecedents. Although the bonds of interpersonal trust remain stronger than those of institutional trust, the likelihood of situational trust versus overall trust may complicate this picture of understanding trust. It may be possible that trust is impervious to this one negative instance versus many positive interactions.
2000年至2006年期间,有六种主要药品被撤出市场。目前几乎没有证据表明消费者对这类事件的反应以及撤市对其竞争对手的影响。
探讨药品撤市后消费者的责任归因及其对信任的影响。
将受试者随机分为4组,为他们提供一个独特的假设药品撤市情景,并要求他们设想自己处于所描述的情景中。每个情景代表与药品撤市的不同“距离”(例如,受试者是否被要求假设他们正在服用撤市药物或治疗替代药物)。测量对几个关键专业人员/群体的指责和信任。
与药品撤市的“距离”越近,对食品药品监督管理局(FDA)、制药公司和医生的责任归因越高。尽管信任得分模式不因“距离”而有所不同,但保险公司和制药公司的信任度较低,而药剂师和医生获得了较高的信任评级。服用撤市产品的消费者与服用同一治疗类别产品(“替代”产品)的消费者之间的指责似乎没有差异。
在药品撤市事件中,替代产品(同一治疗类别的药物)似乎会受到影响,而用于治疗相同疾病的药物似乎不受影响。关于信任的难以解释的发现可能是由于信任比指责更处于下游(基于情景呈现),并且信任是一个具有多个前因的复杂结构。尽管人际信任的纽带仍然比机构信任更强,但情景信任与总体信任的可能性可能会使这种对信任的理解变得复杂。有可能信任不受这一个负面事件的影响,而受许多积极互动的影响。