• David V Evans, Toby Keys, Laurel Desnick, A AndrillaC HollyCH, Danielle Bienz, and Roger Rosenblatt.
• Department of Family Medicine, University of Washington.
• Fam Med. 2016 Jul 1; 48 (7): 561-4.

Background And ObjectivesPharmaceutical marketing techniques are effective in changing the behavior of health care providers in ways that deviate from evidence-based practices. To mitigate the influence of pharmaceutical marketing on learners, academic medical centers (AMCs) have adopted policies to limit student/industry interaction. Many clinical experiences occur outside of the AMC. The purpose of this study was to compare medical students' exposure to pharmaceutical marketing in off-campus rural and urban underserved clinical sites.MethodsThe University of Washington School of Medicine Rural and Underserved Opportunities Program (RUOP) places rising second-year medical students in underserved clinical sites in five northwestern states. We surveyed RUOP students to evaluate their exposure to pharmaceutical marketing.ResultsOf 120 students, 86 (72%) completed surveys. Sixty-five (76%) did their RUOP rotation in rural areas. Students in rural locations were more likely to report exposure to pharmaceutical marketing. Distribution of free drug samples was reportedly three times higher in rural than urban sites (54% versus 15%). Doctors meeting with sales representatives were reported as four times higher in rural clinics (40% versus 10%).ConclusionsStudents at rural sites reported exposure to pharmaceutical marketing more than those in urban settings. Rural medical educators should provide faculty development for community clinicians on the influences of pharmaceutical marketing on learners. Medical schools must review local clinic and institution-wide policies to limit pharmaceutical marketing exposure to learners in the rural learning environment.

22 keywords...

hide…