A study of adherence of drug promotional literatures from various clinical specialties to the World Health Organization ethical criteria for drug promotion

Abstract

Introduction: Doctors‑prescribing practices are influenced by drug promotional
activities. Studies have shown that drug promotional literatures (DPLs) do not conform
to the established regulations in many countries. However, whether the non-conformance
is more likely in a particular clinical specialty needs to be determined. The objective of
our study was to assess the adherence of DPLs sampled from various clinical specialties
to the World Health Organization (WHO) criteria for ethical drug promotion and
determine the presence of any difference. Methodology: Thirty DPLs were collected
from each of the five clinical specialty clinics (General Medicine, Surgery, Obstetrics
and Gynecology, Pediatrics and Psychiatry) of a University Teaching Hospital. Each
promotional literature was evaluated for adherence to the individual WHO ethical
criteria’s for drug promotion. Results: More than 80% of the promotional literatures
from all the clinical specialties did not contain information on dosage modification,
contraindications, precautions, adverse effects, drug interactions, drug over dosage,
excipients, storage and shelf‑life, and legal category of the drugs. Nearly 19.33%
of the DPL were for vitamins, minerals, and nutritional supplements; 13.33% for
antimicrobials and 10% for anti‑anxiety medications. Conclusions: Our study shows
that most of the DPLs across clinical specialties failed to adhere to many of the WHO
criteria of ethical drug promotion. The information lacking in the DPLs is critical for
rational decision making. Considering that these irregularities are present across clinical
specialties, it is important to strengthen the regulations governing drug promotion.