Volume 3

Interagency coordination in drug research and regulation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Eighty-eighth Congress, first session. Agency coordination study, pursuant to S. Res. 27, 88th Cong. Review of cooperation on drug policies among Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, Veterans' Administration, and other agencies. Mar. 20-June 26, 1963.

United States. Congress. Senate. Committee on Government Operations

Date:: 1963

Credit: Interagency coordination in drug research and regulation : hearings before the Subcommittee on Reorganization and International Organizations of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Eighty-eighth Congress, first session. Agency coordination study, pursuant to S. Res. 27, 88th Cong. Review of cooperation on drug policies among Food and Drug Administration, National Institutes of Health, Veterans' Administration, and other agencies. Mar. 20-June 26, 1963. Source: Wellcome Collection.

394/504 page 1160

In general, by major geographical divisions, the sample appears to be rea- sonably representative of medical practitioner attitudes in each region. SUMMARY OF RESULTS The following is a synopsis of the responses obtained for each of the ques- tions, aS numbered (see attached questionnaire *). For further details, note the table references. Results are provided, wherever meaningful, by the four major census regions (East, South, North Central, and West), for the mail questionnaire responses; and by State in the inclusive region, for the States in which personal interviews were conducted (Pennsylvania, Kentucky, and Michigan). (1) “Various methods are used to disseminate written information to the physician about the many new products introduced annually. Which three of the sources listed below are most important to you personally in obtaining complete information on indications, contraindications, and precautions for new drugs?” The preferred source of information about new drugs, in all geographical re- gions of the United States, is literature detailed by manufacturers’ technical representatives. Twenty-seven percent specifically cited this source first. Physi- cians’ Desk Reference and “journal articles or papers” closely vied for second place of preference (see table No. 1*). (2) “Of the following sources, which do you commonly use to refresh or re- check your memory on usage, dosage, contraindications, side effects, and so on?’ As a means of refreshing his memory, on action of a drug, the medical practi- tioner prefers the Physicans’ Desk Reference above all other sources combined. In fact, no other source was checked by more than 3 percent of the respondents (see table No. 2*). The replies to both questions Nos. 1 and 2 seem to indicate that the type of information on new drug usage, dosage, side effects, etc., is best supplied in the first instances by a combination of literature and verbal explanation and by broadly inclusive literature. An examination of the major sources cited in re- sponse to question No. 1 tends to point up the physician’s desire for keeping current with respect to drug developments. The considerable dependence on the Physicians’ Desk Reference, with its quarterly supplements, emphasizes the need for comprehensive material in ready reference form. It would seem that physicians like the way in which drug specifications are provided in a book or journal in a format such as employed by PDR. . (3) “Do you feel that you need better quality of informational material or service on new drug facts than is currently being provided? “(Check one) [J Yes; [J Qualified Yes; (] No; [J Qualified No; (] No opinion” A majority of the respondents by region, and in total (58.9 percent), felt cate- gorically that no change was needed in the present methods of supplying informa- tion on new drugs. An additional 10.9 percent qualified their ‘no’ responses slightly (see table No. 3*). Thus, at total of 70 percent indicated that no basic change was required. This was borne out in the comments in answer to question No. 4 which accompanied the “qualified no” replies to question No. 8. The re- sponses to this question, analyzed in the light of answers to other parts of the questionnaire, indicate that relatively little dissatisfection is felt with the cur- rent methods of supplying information on new drugs. (4) “Please comment on good points or shortcomings, in your opinion, with regard to the question raised in No. 3.” Comments regarding needs for a better method for furnishing new drug infor- mation were quite varied. The statements were so extensive that they were not included here, in the interest of brevity. (5) “Below are shown three possible alternatives for distributing new product information to the prescribing physician. Would you please check the one which would best serve your needs. “(a) To have individual manufacturers regularly provide information directly to you for each new product in a comprehensive form, showing dosage, composi- tion, action, clinical results, side effects, cautions, references, and other principal pertinent data.

Licence and re-use

Contents

Volumes