Author
Listed:
- Mishal Khan
- Afifah Rahman-Shepherd
- Muhammad Naveed Noor
- Sabeen Sharif
- Meherunissa Hamid
- Wafa Aftab
- Afshan Khurshid Isani
- Robyna Irshad Khan
- Rumina Hasan
- Sadia Shakoor
- Sameen Siddiqi
Abstract
Focus on profit-generating enterprise in healthcare can create conflicts of interest that adversely impact prescribing and pricing of medicines. Although a global challenge, addressing the impacts on quality of care is particularly difficult in countries where the pharmaceutical industry and physician lobby is strong relative to regulatory institutions. Our study characterises the range of incentives exchanged between the pharmaceutical industry and physicians, and investigates the differences between incentivisation practices and policies in Pakistan. In this mixed methods study, we first thematically analysed semi-structured interviews with 28 purposively selected for-profit primary-care physicians and 13 medical sales representatives from pharmaceutical companies working across Pakistan’s largest city, Karachi. We then conducted a content analysis of policies on ethical practice issued by two regulatory bodies responsible in Pakistan, and the World Health Organization. This enabled a systematic comparison of incentivisation practices with what is considered ‘prohibitive’ or ‘permissive’ in policy. Our findings demonstrate that incentivisation of physicians to meet pharmaceutical sales targets is the norm, and that both parties play in the symbiotic physician-pharma incentivisation dynamics. Further, we were able to categorise the types of incentive exchanged into one of five categories: financial, material, professional or educational, social or recreational, and familial. Our comparison of incentivisation practices with policies revealed three reasons for such widespread incentivisation linked to sales targets: first, some clear policies were being ignored by physicians; second, there are ambiguous or contradictory policies with respect to specific incentive types; and third, numerous incentive types are unaddressed by existing policies, such as pharmaceutical companies paying for private clinic renovations. There is a need for policies to be clarified and updated, and to build buy-in for policy enforcement from pharmaceutical companies and physicians, such that transgressions on target-driven prescribing are seen to be unethical.
Suggested Citation
Mishal Khan & Afifah Rahman-Shepherd & Muhammad Naveed Noor & Sabeen Sharif & Meherunissa Hamid & Wafa Aftab & Afshan Khurshid Isani & Robyna Irshad Khan & Rumina Hasan & Sadia Shakoor & Sameen Siddiq, 2023.
"Incentivisation practices and their influence on physicians’ prescriptions: A qualitative analysis of practice and policy in Pakistan,"
PLOS Global Public Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(6), pages 1-17, June.
Handle:
RePEc:plo:pgph00:0001890
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pgph.0001890
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pgph00:0001890. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: globalpubhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/globalpublichealth .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.