IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0191856.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: Going beyond the gift – An explorative review

Author

Listed:
  • Tom Latten
  • Daan Westra
  • Federica Angeli
  • Aggie Paulus
  • Marleen Struss
  • Dirk Ruwaard

Abstract

Introduction: Interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers are increasingly scrutinized by academics, professionals, media, and politicians. Most empirical studies and professional guidelines focus on unilateral donor-recipient types of interaction and overlook, or fail to distinguish between, more reciprocal types of interaction. However, the degree of goal alignment and potential for value creation differs in these two types of interactions. Failing to differentiate between these two forms of interaction between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers could thus lead to biased conclusions regarding their desirability. This study reviews the empirical literature regarding the effects of bilateral forms of interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers in order to explore their effects. Material and methods: We searched two medical databases (i.e. PubMed and Cochrane Library) and one business database (i.e. EBSCO) for empirical, peer-reviewed articles concerning any type of bilateral interaction between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers. We included quantitative articles which were written in English and published between January 1st, 2000 and October 31st, 2016, and where the title or abstract included a combination of synonyms of the following keywords: pharmaceutical companies, healthcare providers, interaction, and effects. Results: Our search results yielded 10 studies which were included in our analysis. These studies focused on either research-oriented interaction or on education-oriented interaction. The included studies reported various outcomes of interaction such as prescribing behavior, ethical dilemmas, and research output. Regardless of the type of interaction, the studies either reported no significant effects or ambivalent outcomes such as affected clinical practice or ethical issues. Discussion and conclusion: The effects of bilateral interactions reported in the literature are similar to those reported in studies concerning unilateral interactions. The theoretical notion that bilateral interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers have different effects given their increased level of goal alignment thus does not seem to hold. However, most of the empirical studies focus on intermediary, provider-level, outcomes such as altered prescribing behavior. Outcomes at the health system level such as overall costs and quality of care are overlooked. Further research is necessary in order to disentangle various forms of value created by different types of interactions between pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers.

Suggested Citation

  • Tom Latten & Daan Westra & Federica Angeli & Aggie Paulus & Marleen Struss & Dirk Ruwaard, 2018. "Pharmaceutical companies and healthcare providers: Going beyond the gift – An explorative review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-15, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0191856
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0191856
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191856
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0191856&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0191856?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jill A Fisher & Corey A Kalbaugh, 2012. "United States Private-Sector Physicians and Pharmaceutical Contract Research: A Qualitative Study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(7), pages 1-8, July.
    2. J. Carlos Jarillo, 1988. "On strategic networks," Strategic Management Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 9(1), pages 31-41, January.
    3. Elisa Villani & Luciano Greco & Nelson Phillips, 2017. "Understanding Value Creation in Public-Private Partnerships: A Comparative Case Study," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 876-905, September.
    4. Sergio Sismondo, 2007. "Ghost Management: How Much of the Medical Literature Is Shaped Behind the Scenes by the Pharmaceutical Industry?," Working Papers id:1254, eSocialSciences.
    5. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    6. Raak, Arno van & Paulus, Aggie & Mur-Veeman, Ingrid, 2005. "Why do health and social care providers co-operate?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 74(1), pages 13-23, September.
    7. Racha Fadlallah & Hala Nas & Dana Naamani & Fadi El-Jardali & Ihsan Hammoura & Lina Al-Khaled & Hneine Brax & Lara Kahale & Elie A Akl, 2016. "Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(8), pages 1-34, August.
    8. Christiana Weber & Kathrin Weidner & Arne Kroeger & James Wallace, 2017. "Social Value Creation in Inter-Organizational Collaborations in the Not-for-Profit Sector – Give and Take from a Dyadic Perspective," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 54(6), pages 929-956, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2019. "Towards a servitization of innovation networks: from traditional innovation networks to public service innovation networks for social innovation," Post-Print halshs-03177975, HAL.
    2. Juelin Yin & Dima Jamali, 2021. "Collide or Collaborate: The Interplay of Competing Logics and Institutional Work in Cross-Sector Social Partnerships," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 169(4), pages 673-694, April.
    3. Ferrán Catalá-López & Gabriel Sanfélix-Gimeno & Manuel Ridao & Salvador Peiró, 2013. "When Are Statins Cost-Effective in Cardiovascular Prevention? A Systematic Review of Sponsorship Bias and Conclusions in Economic Evaluations of Statins," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-1, July.
    4. Benoît Desmarchelier & Faridah Djellal & Faïz Gallouj, 2020. "Towards a servitization of innovation networks: a mapping," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(9), pages 1368-1397, July.
    5. Westra, Daan & Angeli, Federica & Carree, Martin & Ruwaard, Dirk, 2017. "Understanding competition between healthcare providers: Introducing an intermediary inter-organizational perspective," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(2), pages 149-157.
    6. İlkay Unay-Gailhard & Mark A. Brennen, 2022. "How digital communications contribute to shaping the career paths of youth: a review study focused on farming as a career option," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 39(4), pages 1491-1508, December.
    7. Mahin Ghafari & Vali Baigi & Zahra Cheraghi & Amin Doosti-Irani, 2016. "The Prevalence of Asymptomatic Bacteriuria in Iranian Pregnant Women: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(6), pages 1-10, June.
    8. Elizabeth T Cafiero-Fonseca & Andrew Stawasz & Sydney T Johnson & Reiko Sato & David E Bloom, 2017. "The full benefits of adult pneumococcal vaccination: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(10), pages 1-23, October.
    9. Santos Urbina & Sofía Villatoro & Jesús Salinas, 2021. "Self-Regulated Learning and Technology-Enhanced Learning Environments in Higher Education: A Scoping Review," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(13), pages 1-12, June.
    10. Oded Berger-Tal & Alison L Greggor & Biljana Macura & Carrie Ann Adams & Arden Blumenthal & Amos Bouskila & Ulrika Candolin & Carolina Doran & Esteban Fernández-Juricic & Kiyoko M Gotanda & Catherine , 2019. "Systematic reviews and maps as tools for applying behavioral ecology to management and policy," Behavioral Ecology, International Society for Behavioral Ecology, vol. 30(1), pages 1-8.
    11. Nadine Desrochers & Adèle Paul‐Hus & Jen Pecoskie, 2017. "Five decades of gratitude: A meta‐synthesis of acknowledgments research," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2821-2833, December.
    12. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    13. Xue-Ying Xu & Hong Kong & Rui-Xiang Song & Yu-Han Zhai & Xiao-Fei Wu & Wen-Si Ai & Hong-Bo Liu, 2014. "The Effectiveness of Noninvasive Biomarkers to Predict Hepatitis B-Related Significant Fibrosis and Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Test Accuracy," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-16, June.
    14. Vicente Miñana-Signes & Manuel Monfort-Pañego & Javier Valiente, 2021. "Teaching Back Health in the School Setting: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(3), pages 1-18, January.
    15. Agnieszka A. Tubis & Katarzyna Grzybowska, 2022. "In Search of Industry 4.0 and Logistics 4.0 in Small-Medium Enterprises—A State of the Art Review," Energies, MDPI, vol. 15(22), pages 1-26, November.
    16. Obsa Urgessa Ayana & Jima Degaga, 2022. "Effects of rural electrification on household welfare: a meta-regression analysis," International Review of Economics, Springer;Happiness Economics and Interpersonal Relations (HEIRS), vol. 69(2), pages 209-261, June.
    17. Caloffi, Annalisa & Colovic, Ana & Rizzoli, Valentina & Rossi, Federica, 2023. "Innovation intermediaries' types and functions: A computational analysis of the literature," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    18. García-Poole, Chloe & Byrne, Sonia & Rodrigo, María José, 2019. "How do communities intervene with adolescents at psychosocial risk? A systematic review of positive development programs," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 99(C), pages 194-209.
    19. Jie Zhao & Ji Chen & Damien Beillouin & Hans Lambers & Yadong Yang & Pete Smith & Zhaohai Zeng & Jørgen E. Olesen & Huadong Zang, 2022. "Global systematic review with meta-analysis reveals yield advantage of legume-based rotations and its drivers," Nature Communications, Nature, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    20. Qing Ye & Bao-Xin Qian & Wei-Li Yin & Feng-Mei Wang & Tao Han, 2016. "Association between the HFE C282Y, H63D Polymorphisms and the Risks of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease, Liver Cirrhosis and Hepatocellular Carcinoma: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis o," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-17, September.

    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:pone00:0191856. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.