A follow-up study on the effects of an educational intervention against pharmaceutical promotion

BACKGROUND: The promotion strategies of pharmaceutical companies create many problems including irrational prescribing, diminished trust in the patient-physician relationship and unnecessary increases in pharmaceutical costs. Educating prescribers is known to be one of the few potentially effective measures to counteract those impacts. However such educational programs are limited in the literature, and their effectiveness against the effects of hidden curriculum in the long term is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the effectiveness of an education program both in the short term and the long term after the students have been exposed to informal and hidden curriculum and various pharmaceutical promotion methods. METHODS: A longitudinal and controlled study was carried out in a school of medicine in Turkey where there are no restrictive policies for pharmaceutical promotion. A survey was applied to 123 students who attended the class throughout the terms of 2011–12, 2012–13, and 2013–14, evaluating the pre-educational status of students’ opinions of promotion and any post-educational changes. A follow-up study four years later asked those three cohorts to fill out the same survey to see the possible effects of the clinical environment and various promotion methods. Also, the opinions of all 518 sixth-year students who had not taken the class in those three terms were compared to the educated students. RESULTS: The program was significantly effective in the short term in changing students’ opinions and attitudes positively towards recognizing companies’ discourse and promotion strategies. But in the long term, the education lost its ability to convince students of the importance of not getting financial support for scientific activities from pharmaceutical companies (p:0.006) and carrying out research (p<0.001). In addition, although the educated students were more aware that trivial gifts could influence prescriptions compared to the uneducated 6th year students (p<0.001), the difference between them and the uneducated students generally becomes less significant when they encounter the clinical environment. The study also evaluated students highly-exposed to promotion; for this sub-group, the educated students kept their consciousness level about the influences of trivial gifts (p<0.001) while the uneducated students were confident that they were immune to the influence of trivial gifts. CONCLUSIONS: The education program could be used for creating awareness of, increasing skepticism towards, and inculcating disapproval about pharmaceutical promotion practices. However, the effectiveness of the educational intervention is susceptible to erosion after exposure to the informal and hidden curriculum together with exposure to promotion. The impact of role-models, organizational culture, and institutional policies could be important aspects to be addressed for sustaining the effectiveness of such education programs.