The NAP campaign brings a new and refreshing level of transparency into medical practice, it can only boost the level of trust patients place in their doctors to see a NAP poster in their waiting rooms.
As a registrar, I trained during the rofecoxib (Vioxx) era and prescribed it to a number of patients. Turns out, the information about its cardiovascular risks was known for at least two years before the drug was withdrawn. I don't trust information from drug companies.
Many of our colleagues will say they are not unduly influenced by drug company reps, but the research shows that those who see reps often are more likely to prescribe their products, and likely to prescribe more inappropriately. Why would the pharmaceutical companies spend literally billions of dollars worldwide on these marketing practices if they were not reaping profits from these so-called “educational” sessions?
I support this campaign because I want my patients to be confident that I am prescribing medicines only because it will benefit them. I don't want my prescribing decisions to be determined by the samples I have in the cupboard. There is a big difference between evidence and marketing - I can afford my own pens & I like my home-made lunches.
We’re not anti-drug and this isn’t anti-pharmaceutical industry. On the contrary, drugs are the mainstay of the different forms of treatment we deliver in primary care. We’re just bothered by the advertising and in particular the advertising that goes through drug reps.
GPs need to know what the latest drugs are, they need to know the latest information - its about where you're getting that source of information from.
If I was a patient I’d want to see a doctor who kept up to date by looking at the best evidence, not necessarily by seeing drug reps. When I go to a doctor I want the best treatment, not the latest treatment.