|
|
Press Releases
Physicians Not Influenced by Marketing, Public Opinion When Prescribing Genetically Modified Biopharmaceuticals, MU Researchers Find
Columbia, Mo. (June 3, 2004) - Throughout the world, scientists are spending countless hours genetically manipulating living organisms to produce new biopharmaceuticals that can have substantial medical and diagnostic uses. Today, these products are mass marketed to influence public opinion and affect prescription decisions by medical professionals. However, a new study by researchers at the University of Missouri-Columbia found that physicians are not swayed by these marketing campaigns or by public opinion when prescribing biopharmaceuticals.
“We wanted to explore the knowledge and opinions of physicians regarding the acceptance of plant-based biopharmaceuticals (PBPs),” said Glen Cameron, professor of journalism and co-director of the MU Health Communication Research Center, who conducted the study with doctoral student Mugur Geana.
Cameron and Geana interviewed physicians in the areas of general practice, internal medicine and oncology. They found that manufacturing details, marketing and public opinion about specific drugs were not among physicians’ major concerns when deciding whether and how to use a product.
“All of the physicians agreed this was unnecessary information, mainly due to their trust in regulatory bodies and their belief that once approved for human use, all possible influences of the manufacturing process on the final product had been addressed,” Cameron said.
Cameron and Geana also found that documented scientific evidence, peer-reviewed journals and discussions with peers who have used identical or similar drugs in their practices were reported as the principal and most trusted sources of information for physicians when deciding on implementing a new drug. The majority of physicians also agreed that, given solid evidence-based information on the benefits, adverse reactions and interactions, and long and short-term effects of PBPs, they would have no more concerns using these products in their practices than with any currently used pharmaceuticals.
Cameron and Geana are developing a model to explain how information from diverse sources helps an individual build an opinion on an innovation. The model, temporarily named “penetration of innovation,” focuses on the roles of experts, direct experience and pop culture sources as main outlets shaping the path for acceptance of an innovation.
|
|
