Muhammad Naveed Noor, Haider Safdar Abbasi, Nina Van Der Mark, Zahida Azizullah, Janice Linton, Afifah Rahman-Shepherd, Amna Rehana Siddiqui, Mishal S. Khan, Rumina Hasan, Sadia Shakoor
{"title":"医疗消费者对与激励挂钩的处方的看法:研究范围综述","authors":"Muhammad Naveed Noor, Haider Safdar Abbasi, Nina Van Der Mark, Zahida Azizullah, Janice Linton, Afifah Rahman-Shepherd, Amna Rehana Siddiqui, Mishal S. Khan, Rumina Hasan, Sadia Shakoor","doi":"10.1101/2024.02.27.24303447","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Incentive-linked prescribing (ILP) is considered a controversial practice universally. If incentivised, physicians may prioritise meeting pharmaceutical sales targets through prescriptions, rather than considering patients' health and wellbeing. Despite the potential harms of ILP to patients and important stakeholders in the healthcare system, healthcare consumers (HCCs) which include patients and the general public often have far less awareness about the practice of pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. We conducted a scoping review to explore what existing research says about HCCs’ perceptions of the financial relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. To conduct this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley’s five-stage framework: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting eligible studies, data charting, and collating, summarising, and reporting results. We also used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), as a guide to organise the information in this review. Quantitative and qualitative studies with patients and the general public, published in the English language were identified through searches of Scopus, Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and Google Scholar. Three themes emerged through the analysis of the 13 eligible studies: understanding of incentivisation, perceptions of hazards linked to ILP, and HCCs’ suggestions to address it. We found documentation that HCCs exhibited a range of knowledge from good to insufficient about the pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. HCCs perceived several hazards linked to ILP such as a lack of trust in physicians and the healthcare system, the prescribing of unnecessary medications, and the negative effect on physicians’ reputations in society. In addition to strong regulatory controls, it is critical that physicians self-regulate their behaviour, and publicly disclose if they have any financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Doing so can contribute to trust between patients and physicians, an important part of patient-focused care and a contributor to user confidence in the wider health system.","PeriodicalId":501556,"journal":{"name":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","volume":"73 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Healthcare Consumers’ Perceptions of Incentive-Linked Prescribing: A Scoping Review of Research\",\"authors\":\"Muhammad Naveed Noor, Haider Safdar Abbasi, Nina Van Der Mark, Zahida Azizullah, Janice Linton, Afifah Rahman-Shepherd, Amna Rehana Siddiqui, Mishal S. Khan, Rumina Hasan, Sadia Shakoor\",\"doi\":\"10.1101/2024.02.27.24303447\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Incentive-linked prescribing (ILP) is considered a controversial practice universally. If incentivised, physicians may prioritise meeting pharmaceutical sales targets through prescriptions, rather than considering patients' health and wellbeing. Despite the potential harms of ILP to patients and important stakeholders in the healthcare system, healthcare consumers (HCCs) which include patients and the general public often have far less awareness about the practice of pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. We conducted a scoping review to explore what existing research says about HCCs’ perceptions of the financial relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. To conduct this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley’s five-stage framework: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting eligible studies, data charting, and collating, summarising, and reporting results. We also used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), as a guide to organise the information in this review. Quantitative and qualitative studies with patients and the general public, published in the English language were identified through searches of Scopus, Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and Google Scholar. Three themes emerged through the analysis of the 13 eligible studies: understanding of incentivisation, perceptions of hazards linked to ILP, and HCCs’ suggestions to address it. We found documentation that HCCs exhibited a range of knowledge from good to insufficient about the pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. HCCs perceived several hazards linked to ILP such as a lack of trust in physicians and the healthcare system, the prescribing of unnecessary medications, and the negative effect on physicians’ reputations in society. In addition to strong regulatory controls, it is critical that physicians self-regulate their behaviour, and publicly disclose if they have any financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Doing so can contribute to trust between patients and physicians, an important part of patient-focused care and a contributor to user confidence in the wider health system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":501556,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement\",\"volume\":\"73 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.27.24303447\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"medRxiv - Health Systems and Quality Improvement","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.27.24303447","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
与激励挂钩的处方(ILP)被普遍认为是一种有争议的做法。如果受到激励,医生可能会优先考虑通过处方达到药品销售目标,而不是考虑病人的健康和福祉。尽管ILP对患者和医疗保健系统中的重要利益相关者有潜在危害,但包括患者和公众在内的医疗保健消费者(HCCs)往往对医生的药品激励行为知之甚少。我们进行了一次范围界定审查,以探索现有研究对 HCCs 对医生与制药公司之间财务关系的看法的描述。为了进行此次范围界定综述,我们遵循了 Arksey 和 O'Malley 的五阶段框架:确定研究问题、确定相关研究、选择符合条件的研究、绘制数据图表以及整理、总结和报告结果。我们还使用了《系统性综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》(Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses)的扩展版(PRISMA-ScR)作为本综述的信息组织指南。通过搜索 Scopus、Medline (OVID)、EMBASE (OVID) 和 Google Scholar,确定了以患者和公众为对象的定量和定性研究。通过对 13 项符合条件的研究进行分析,我们发现了三个主题:对激励机制的理解、对与 ILP 相关的危害的看法,以及保健中心对解决这一问题的建议。我们发现有文献表明,HCCs 对医生的药物激励表现出了从了解到不了解的不同程度。医疗保健理事会认为,ILP存在若干危害,如对医生和医疗保健系统缺乏信任、开具不必要的药物处方以及对医生的社会声誉造成负面影响。除了强有力的监管措施外,至关重要的是,医生应自我约束其行为,并公开披露他们是否与制药公司有任何财务关系。这样做可以促进病人与医生之间的信任,是以病人为中心的医疗服务的重要组成部分,也有助于增强用户对更广泛的医疗系统的信心。
Healthcare Consumers’ Perceptions of Incentive-Linked Prescribing: A Scoping Review of Research
Incentive-linked prescribing (ILP) is considered a controversial practice universally. If incentivised, physicians may prioritise meeting pharmaceutical sales targets through prescriptions, rather than considering patients' health and wellbeing. Despite the potential harms of ILP to patients and important stakeholders in the healthcare system, healthcare consumers (HCCs) which include patients and the general public often have far less awareness about the practice of pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. We conducted a scoping review to explore what existing research says about HCCs’ perceptions of the financial relationship between physicians and pharmaceutical companies. To conduct this scoping review, we followed Arksey and O'Malley’s five-stage framework: identifying research questions, identifying relevant studies, selecting eligible studies, data charting, and collating, summarising, and reporting results. We also used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses’ extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR), as a guide to organise the information in this review. Quantitative and qualitative studies with patients and the general public, published in the English language were identified through searches of Scopus, Medline (OVID), EMBASE (OVID), and Google Scholar. Three themes emerged through the analysis of the 13 eligible studies: understanding of incentivisation, perceptions of hazards linked to ILP, and HCCs’ suggestions to address it. We found documentation that HCCs exhibited a range of knowledge from good to insufficient about the pharmaceutical incentivisation of physicians. HCCs perceived several hazards linked to ILP such as a lack of trust in physicians and the healthcare system, the prescribing of unnecessary medications, and the negative effect on physicians’ reputations in society. In addition to strong regulatory controls, it is critical that physicians self-regulate their behaviour, and publicly disclose if they have any financial ties with pharmaceutical companies. Doing so can contribute to trust between patients and physicians, an important part of patient-focused care and a contributor to user confidence in the wider health system.