OBJECTIVES

To explore attitudes of physicians from all specialties toward gifts from and interactions with the pharmaceutical and medical device industries.

DESIGN

Anonymous, cross-sectional survey distributed and collected between June 1 and September 1, 2008.

SETTING

Hospitals in the Mount Sinai School of Medicine consortium in the New York, New York, metropolitan area.

PARTICIPANTS

Faculty and trainee physicians from all clinical departments.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Attitudes toward industry interactions and gifts and their appropriateness measured on 4-point Likert scales.

RESULTS

A total of 590 physicians and medical students completed the survey (response rate, 67.0%); 351 (59.5%) were male, 230 (39.0%) were attending physicians, and 131 (23.7%) of 553 (excluding medical students) were from surgical specialties. Attitudes toward industry and gifts were generally positive: 72.2% found sponsored lunches appropriate, whereas 25.4% considered large gifts appropriate. Surgeons, trainees, and those unfamiliar with institutional policies on industry interactions held more positive attitudes than others and were more likely to deem some gifts appropriate, including industry funding of residency programs and, among surgeons, receiving meals, travel expenses, and payments for attending lectures. Nonattending physicians held more positive attitudes toward receiving meals in clinical settings, textbooks, and samples.

CONCLUSIONS

Physicians continue to hold positive attitudes toward marketing-oriented activities of the pharmaceutical and device industries. Changes in medical culture and physician education focused on surgeons and trainees may align physician attitudes with current policy trends.

The ASGE Technology Committee provides reviews of existing, new, or emerging endoscopic technologies that have an impact on the practice of GI endoscopy. Evidence-based methodology is used, by using a MEDLINE literature search to identify pertinent clinical studies on the topic and a MAUDE (U.S. Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health) database search to identify the reported complications of a given technology. Both are supplemented by accessing the "related articles" feature of PubMed and by scrutinizing pertinent references cited by the identified studies. Controlled clinical trials are emphasized, but in many cases, data from randomized, controlled trials are lacking. In such cases, large case series, preliminary clinical studies, and expert opinions are used. Technical data are gathered from traditional and Web-based publications, proprietary publications, and informal communications with pertinent vendors. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are drafted by 1 or 2 members of the ASGE Technology Committee, reviewed and edited by the committee as a whole, and approved by the Governing Board of the ASGE. When financial guidance is indicated, the most recent coding data and list prices at the time of publication are provided. For this review, the MEDLINE database was searched through August 2009 for articles related to personal protection equipment by using the key words "personal protection equipment" (exp Protective Clothing/ or exp Protective Devices/ or exp Masks/ or exp Occupational Exposure/'') "infection control" paired with "Endoscopy." For the radiation section, the following key words were used: "radiation and endoscopy," "radiation and ERCP," and "radiation safety." For the ergonomics section, the following key words were used: "ergonomics of endoscopy," "endoscopist injury," "medical ergonomics," "endoscopy and musculoskeletal strain," "musculoskeletal injury and endoscopists," "occupational diseases and endoscopy," "cumulative trauma disorder and endoscopy," "repetitive strain injury and endoscopy." Technology Status Evaluation Reports are scientific reviews provided solely for educational and informational purposes. Technology Status Evaluation Reports are not rules and should not be construed as establishing a legal standard of care or as encouraging, advocating, requiring, or discouraging any particular treatment or payment for such treatment.