Perceptions of the influence of prescription medicine samples on prescribing by family physicians

Background: The provision of free prescription medicine samples is a common and traditional marketing strategy used by pharmaceutical companies, but concerns have been raised about their influence on physician prescribing behavior and patient safety. Objective: We sought to investigate the knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of Australian family physicians regarding the use of sample prescription medications. Methods: Qualitative and quantitative techniques were used, including (1) mailed questionnaires to family physicians, (2) semistructured interviews with family physicians, and (3) sample cupboard inventories. Results: A number of issues about samples were identified by the questionnaires (208) and interviews (17 doctors), including insufficient labeling, poor record keeping, diversion of stock (personal use by doctors.. their families, practice staff and pharmaceutical representatives), and wasting of expired stock. Prescription medicine samples also influenced prescribing behavior. Australian doctors were less likely to provide samples to patients on financial grounds compared with a previous study in the United States on medical residents. Six sample cupboards were inventoried. Median wholesale value of sample cupboards was AUD $4959 (range $2395-$8709), with 6% of stock expired. Very little generic medicine was included in the sample cupboards. Conclusions: Better methods are needed to meet legislative requirements and to ensure quality use of medicines (and optimal public health) with respect to prescription medicine samples. Doctors and practice staff require training on the appropriate handling and storage of prescription medications. Alternative ways for distribution of sample medications need to be investigated.

Screening for physical activity in family practice - Evaluation of two brief assessment tools

Background: Physical activity (PA) is relevant to the prevention and management of many health conditions in family practice. There is a need for an efficient, reliable, and valid assessment tool to identify patients in need of PA interventions. Methods: Twenty-eight family physicians in three Australian cities assessed the PA of their adult patients during 2004 using either a two- (2Q) or three-question (3Q) assessment. This was administered again approximately 3 days later to evaluate test-retest reliability. Concurrent validity was evaluated by measuring agreement with the Active Australia Questionnaire, and criterion validity by comparison with 7-day Computer Science Applications, Inc. (CSA) accelerometer counts. Results: A total of 509 patients participated, with 428 (84%) completing a repeat assessment, and 415 (82%) accelerometer monitoring. The brief assessments had moderate test-retest reliability (2Q k = 58.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 47.2-68.8%; 3Q k = 55.6%, 95% CI = 43.8-67.4%); fair to moderate concurrent validity (2Q k = 46.7%, 95% CI = 35.657.9%; 3Q k = 38.7%, 95% CI = 26.4-51.1%); and poor to fair criterion validity (2Q k = 18.2%, 95% CI = 3.9-32.6%; 3Q k = 24.3%, 95% CI = 11.6-36.9%) for identifying patients as sufficiently active. A four-level scale of PA derived from the PA assessments was significantly correlated with accelerometer minutes (2Q rho = 0.39, 95% CI = 0.28-0.49; 3Q rho = 0.31, 95% CI = 0.18-0.43). Physicians reported that the assessments took I to 2 minutes to complete. Conclusions: Both PA assessments were feasible to use in family practice, and were suitable for identifying the least active patients. The 2Q assessment was preferred by clinicians and may be most appropriate for dissemination.