Peay M Y, Peay E R
Department of Psychiatry, University of Adelaide, Australia.
Soc Sci Med. 1990;31(4):467-76. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(90)90042-q.
The present study investigated the adoption of new prescription drugs by specialists who treat serious disorders using relatively high risk drugs with potentially serious side effects. One-hundred and fifty-six specialists, primarily practicing in medical specialties, evaluated a number of drug information sources and reported their use of these sources both in their general drug adoption procedures and in the adoption of one of a number of target drugs. As predicted, the pattern of drug adoption among specialists is substantially different from that generally reported in earlier studies, which are usually based on samples of general practitioners or of general practitioners and specialists combined. Professional sources of information predominate throughout the process, both in adoption procedures generally used and in the adoption of target drugs. The majority of specialists reported contact with commercial sources at some stage in the adoption process for the target drugs, but these sources were not, as is often reported in the literature, the main sources of first news of a new drug, nor did they exert much influence at the prescribing stage. It is clear from these results that in future research on drug innovation, different classes of medical practitioners, such as specialists vs general practitioners, will need to be distinguished.
本研究调查了使用具有潜在严重副作用的相对高风险药物治疗严重疾病的专科医生对新处方药的采用情况。156名主要从事医学专科的专科医生评估了一些药物信息来源，并报告了他们在一般药物采用程序以及采用多种目标药物之一时对这些来源的使用情况。正如预测的那样，专科医生的药物采用模式与早期研究中通常报告的模式有很大不同，早期研究通常基于全科医生样本或全科医生与专科医生的组合样本。在整个过程中，专业信息来源占主导地位，无论是在一般使用的采用程序中还是在目标药物的采用中。大多数专科医生报告在目标药物采用过程的某个阶段与商业来源有接触，但这些来源并非如文献中经常报道的那样，是新药首次消息的主要来源，在处方阶段也没有发挥太大影响。从这些结果可以清楚地看出，在未来关于药物创新的研究中，需要区分不同类别的医生，如专科医生与全科医生。
