Main Article Content



The aim of the study is to assess and analyse the opinion of doctors working in clinical departments regarding the drug promotional literature.

Materials & Methods

This cross-sectional observational study was done in the Government Medical College Jammu for a period of one month from March 2019 to April 2019. A total of 180 questionnaires which mentioned that whether  brand/generic name, dose, dosage form, adverse drug reaction, warning/contraindication and various scientific references were present in drug promotional literature and type of promotional material preferred and its influence on the prescribing pattern  were distributed among consultants, specialists, super specialists , residents and interns. After conducting the study the results were analyzed in percentage.


160 questionnaires were analyzed and it was seen that 47.5% of doctors were of view that it mostly influences on their prescription and maximum were of opinion that drug promotional literature mentioned both brand/generic name, dose, dosage form, scientific references but there was minimum information about adverse drug reactions, precautions, warning and contraindication and 65% preferred pamphlets, leaflets and brochure as promotional material.


Certain initiatives should be taken for review of promotional and scientific material before it reaches the target i.e doctors. Clinicians should work with pharmaceutical industry to formulate evidence-based information and in absence of proper information one should be aware of risks involved in prescribing such drugs.


Drug promotion Prescription influences Scientific references WHO criteria

Article Details

How to Cite
Dr.Vineeta Sawhney, & Dr. Neeta Sawhney. (2021). Study of promotional drug literature among doctors in a teaching hospital in Northern India. International Journal of Research in Pharmacology & Pharmacotherapeutics, 8(3), 343-347.


  1. [1]. Medni B, Prakash A. Promotional product Literature. Practical Manual of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology.37, 2010, 342-343.
  2. [2]. Mikhael EM. Evaluating the reliability and accuracy of the promotional brochures for the generic pharmaceutical companies in Iraq using World Health Organization guidelines. Journal of Pharmacy and Bioallied Sciences.7(1), 2015, 65-8.
  3. [3]. Cardarelli R, Licciardone JC, Taylor LG. A cross-sectional evidence –based review of pharmaceutical promotional marketing brochures and their underlying studies: Is what they tell us important and true? BMC Family practice,7, 2006, 13.
  4. [4]. Gutknect D.R. Evidence-based advertising? A survey of four major journals. J Am Board FamPract14, 2001, 197-200.
  5. [5]. Villanueva P, Peiro S, Librero J and Pereiro 1. Accuracy of pharmaceutical advertisements in medical journals. Lancet361, 2003, 27-32.
  6. [6]. Jadav SS, Dumatar CB and Dikshit RK. Drug promotional Literatures (DPLs)) evaluation as per World Health Organization (WHO) criteria. Journal of Applied Pharmaceutical Science 4(06), 2014, 084-088.
  7. [7]. Francer J, ZamarriegoIzquierdo, Music T, Narsai K, Nikidis C, Simmonds H and Woods P. Ethical Pharmaceutical promotion and communications worldwide: codes and regulation. Philosophy, Ethics and Humanities in Medicine 2014, 9:7. Published 25, 2014. http//
  8. [8]. Layton Mr, Sritanyarat W, ChadbunchachaiS,Wertheimer AI. Sources of information for new drugs among physicians in Thailand. Pharm World Sci.29, 2007, 619-27.
  9. [9]. Furtado C, Periera JA. Information sources and prescribing in the Lisbon region. Acta Med Port.19, 2006, 301-8
  10. [10]. Idris KM, Mustafa AF, Yousif MA. Pharmaceutical representatives beliefs and practices about their professional practice: a study in Sudan. East Mediterr Health J.18, 2012, 821-6.
  11. [11]. Ziegler MG, Lew P, Singer BC. The accuracy of drug information from pharmaceutical sales representatives. Journal of American Medical Association.273, 1995, 1296.
  12. [12]. Joel Lexchin Analysing Pharmaceutical Advertisements in Medical Journals. Herxheimer 1993.