解读医生处方:一项研究

Cedric Thomas Silveira
{"title":"解读医生处方:一项研究","authors":"Cedric Thomas Silveira","doi":"10.1177/22786821231161247","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Doctors today have very little time to listen to a medical representative. They have become patient-centric and feel that listening to a medical representative is a waste of their time. Wishing to learn what could make a doctor prescribe a drug when visited by the medical representative, I drew up a questionnaire consisting of product-centric variables and non-product-based variables. The questionnaire had six variables, which had to be ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most important and 6 being the least important. The variables were easy availability, economical drugs, company name, sponsorships, medical representative’s dedication, and samples among the non-product-based variables and safety, efficacy, tried and tested, less drug interactions, good reviews of the drug, and less adverse effects among the product-based factors. A total of 100 doctors were interviewed. A personal interview was conducted wherein the questionnaire was direct and structured. The results were such that in Thurstone Case V Scaling, economical drugs were considered as the most effective way to get doctors to prescribe, followed by easy availability, company name, medical rep dedication, samples, and sponsorships among the non-product-centric factors, whereas in the product-centric factors, it included efficacy, followed by time tested, less adverse effects, safety, less drug interactions, and good drug reviews. In Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, it was found that a high, positive correlation existed between economical drugs and efficacious drugs and a medium, positive correlation existed between economical drugs and safe drugs. Similarly, a medium–high correlation existed between company name and time-tested drugs.","PeriodicalId":230921,"journal":{"name":"Jindal Journal of Business Research","volume":"70 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decoding a Doctor’s Prescription: A Study\",\"authors\":\"Cedric Thomas Silveira\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/22786821231161247\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Doctors today have very little time to listen to a medical representative. They have become patient-centric and feel that listening to a medical representative is a waste of their time. Wishing to learn what could make a doctor prescribe a drug when visited by the medical representative, I drew up a questionnaire consisting of product-centric variables and non-product-based variables. The questionnaire had six variables, which had to be ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most important and 6 being the least important. The variables were easy availability, economical drugs, company name, sponsorships, medical representative’s dedication, and samples among the non-product-based variables and safety, efficacy, tried and tested, less drug interactions, good reviews of the drug, and less adverse effects among the product-based factors. A total of 100 doctors were interviewed. A personal interview was conducted wherein the questionnaire was direct and structured. The results were such that in Thurstone Case V Scaling, economical drugs were considered as the most effective way to get doctors to prescribe, followed by easy availability, company name, medical rep dedication, samples, and sponsorships among the non-product-centric factors, whereas in the product-centric factors, it included efficacy, followed by time tested, less adverse effects, safety, less drug interactions, and good drug reviews. In Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, it was found that a high, positive correlation existed between economical drugs and efficacious drugs and a medium, positive correlation existed between economical drugs and safe drugs. Similarly, a medium–high correlation existed between company name and time-tested drugs.\",\"PeriodicalId\":230921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Jindal Journal of Business Research\",\"volume\":\"70 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Jindal Journal of Business Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/22786821231161247\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Jindal Journal of Business Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/22786821231161247","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

现在的医生很少有时间听医疗代表说话。他们变得以病人为中心,觉得听医疗代表的话是在浪费时间。为了了解什么会让医生在医疗代表来访时给医生开处方,我制作了一份问卷,问卷由以产品为中心的变量和以非产品为中心的变量组成。问卷有6个变量,必须从1到6进行排序,1是最重要的,6是最不重要的。变量是非产品变量中的易得性、药物经济性、公司名称、赞助、医疗代表的奉献精神和样品;基于产品的因素中的安全性、有效性、试验和测试、药物相互作用较少、对药物的良好评价以及不良反应较少。共采访了100名医生。进行了一次个人访谈,其中问卷调查是直接和结构化的。结果表明,在Thurstone案例V Scaling中,经济性药物被认为是让医生开处方的最有效方法,其次是非产品中心因素中的易得性、公司名称、医疗代表的贡献、样品和赞助,而在以产品为中心的因素中,它包括疗效,其次是经过时间测试的、不良反应少、安全性、药物相互作用少和良好的药物评论。在Karl Pearson相关系数中,发现经济性药物与有效性药物之间存在高度正相关关系,经济性药物与安全性药物之间存在中等正相关关系。同样,公司名称与经过时间检验的药物之间存在中等高度的相关性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Decoding a Doctor’s Prescription: A Study
Doctors today have very little time to listen to a medical representative. They have become patient-centric and feel that listening to a medical representative is a waste of their time. Wishing to learn what could make a doctor prescribe a drug when visited by the medical representative, I drew up a questionnaire consisting of product-centric variables and non-product-based variables. The questionnaire had six variables, which had to be ranked from 1 to 6, with 1 being the most important and 6 being the least important. The variables were easy availability, economical drugs, company name, sponsorships, medical representative’s dedication, and samples among the non-product-based variables and safety, efficacy, tried and tested, less drug interactions, good reviews of the drug, and less adverse effects among the product-based factors. A total of 100 doctors were interviewed. A personal interview was conducted wherein the questionnaire was direct and structured. The results were such that in Thurstone Case V Scaling, economical drugs were considered as the most effective way to get doctors to prescribe, followed by easy availability, company name, medical rep dedication, samples, and sponsorships among the non-product-centric factors, whereas in the product-centric factors, it included efficacy, followed by time tested, less adverse effects, safety, less drug interactions, and good drug reviews. In Karl Pearson’s coefficient of correlation, it was found that a high, positive correlation existed between economical drugs and efficacious drugs and a medium, positive correlation existed between economical drugs and safe drugs. Similarly, a medium–high correlation existed between company name and time-tested drugs.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Behavioral Intention of Consumers for Green Marketing in India: The Mediating Role of Consumer Environmental Attitude Buying Behavior of Indian Females Toward Natural Personal Care Products: The Moderating Role of Buying Frequency Illuminating the Relationship Between Social Networking Usage and Job Performance Through the Work–Life Balance of Gen-Y Employees in Corporate Sector Employee Motivation and Its Relationship with Online Training Limning Auditing Indian Auditors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1