Geoff Spurling and colleagues report findings of a systematic review looking at the relationship between exposure to promotional material from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of prescribing. They fail to find evidence of improvements in prescribing after exposure, and find some evidence of an association with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality.

BackgroundJournal advertising is one of the main sources of medicines information to doctors. Despite the availability of regulations and controls of drug promotion worldwide, information on medicines provided in journal advertising has been criticized in several studies for being of poor quality. However, no attempt has been made to systematically summarise this body of research. We designed this systematic review to assess all studies that have examined the quality of pharmaceutical advertisements for prescription products in medical and pharmacy journals.Methods and FindingsStudies were identified via searching electronic databases, web library, search engine and reviewing citations (1950 – February 2006). Only articles published in English and examined the quality of information included in pharmaceutical advertisements for prescription products in medical or pharmacy journals were included. For each eligible article, a researcher independently extracted the data on the study methodology and outcomes. The data were then reviewed by a second researcher. Any disagreements were resolved by consensus. The data were analysed descriptively. The final analysis included 24 articles. The studies reviewed advertisements from 26 countries. The number of journals surveyed in each study ranged from four to 24 journals. Several outcome measures were examined including references and claims provided in advertisements, availability of product information, adherence to codes or guidelines and presentation of risk results. The majority of studies employed a convenience-sampling method. Brand name, generic name and indications were usually provided. Journal articles were commonly cited to support pharmaceutical claims. Less than 67% of the claims were supported by a systematic review, a meta-analysis or a randomised control trial. Studies that assessed misleading claims had at least one advertisement with a misleading claim. Two studies found that less than 28% of claims were unambiguous clinical claims. Most advertisements with quantitative information provided risk results as relative risk reduction. Studies were conducted in 26 countries only and then the generalizability of the results is limited.ConclusionsEvidence from this review indicates that low quality of journal advertising is a global issue. As information provided in journal advertising has the potential to change doctors' prescribing behaviour, ongoing efforts to increase education about drug promotion are crucial. The results from our review suggest the need for a global pro-active and effective regulatory system to ensure that information provided in medical journal advertising is supporting the quality use of medicines.

ObjectiveTo explore and understand participants’ perceptions and attitudes towards the reporting of medication errors (MEs).MethodsA qualitative study using in-depth interviews of 31 healthcare practitioners from nine publicly funded, primary care clinics in three states in peninsular Malaysia was conducted for this study. The participants included family medicine specialists, doctors, pharmacists, pharmacist assistants, nurses and assistant medical officers. The interviews were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Analysis of the data was guided by the framework approach.ResultsSix themes and 28 codes were identified. Despite the availability of a reporting system, most of the participants agreed that MEs were underreported. The nature of the error plays an important role in determining the reporting. The reporting system, organisational factors, provider factors, reporter’s burden and benefit of reporting also were identified.ConclusionsHealthcare practitioners in primary care clinics understood the importance of reporting MEs to improve patient safety. Their perceptions and attitudes towards reporting of MEs were influenced by many factors which affect the decision-making process of whether or not to report. Although the process is complex, it primarily is determined by the severity of the outcome of the errors. The participants voluntarily report the errors if they are familiar with the reporting system, what error to report, when to report and what form to use.

BackgroundPharmaceutical representatives provide medicines information on their promoted products to doctors. However, studies have shown that the quality of this information is often low. No study has assessed the medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Malaysia and no recent evidence in Australia is present. We aimed to compare the provision of medicines information by pharmaceutical representatives to doctors in Australia and Malaysia.MethodsFollowing a pharmaceutical representative's visit, general practitioners in Australia and Malaysia who had agreed to participate, were asked to fill out a questionnaire on the main product and claims discussed during the encounter. The questionnaire focused on provision of product information including indications, adverse effects, precautions, contraindications and the provision of information on the Pharmaceutical Benefit Scheme (PBS) listings and restrictions (in Australia only). Descriptive statistics were produced. Chi-square analysis and clustered linear regression were used to assess differences in Australia and Malaysia.ResultsSignificantly more approved product information sheets were provided in Malaysia (78%) than in Australia (53%) (P < 0.001). In both countries, general practitioners reported that indications (Australia, 90%, Malaysia, 93%) and dosages (Australia, 76%, Malaysia, 82%) were frequently provided by pharmaceutical representatives. Contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects were often omitted in the presentations (range 25% - 41%). General practitioners in Australia and Malaysia indicated that in more than 90% of presentations, pharmaceutical representatives partly or fully answered their questions on contraindications, precautions, drug interactions and adverse effects. More general practitioners in Malaysia (85%) than in Australia (60%) reported that pharmaceutical representatives should have mentioned contraindications, precautions for use, drug interaction or adverse effects spontaneously (P < 0.001). In 48% of the Australian presentations, general practitioners reported the pharmaceutical representatives failed to mention information on PBS listings to general practitioners.ConclusionsInformation on indications and dosages were usually provided by pharmaceutical representatives in Australia and Malaysia. However, risk and harmful effects of medicines were often missing in their presentations. Effective control of medicines information provided by pharmaceutical representatives is needed.

MERS provides rich information on the characteristics of reported MEs. Low contribution to reporting from healthcare facilities other than government hospitals and non-pharmacists requires further investigation. Thus, a feasible approach to promote MERS among healthcare providers in both public and private sectors needs to be formulated and strengthened. Preventive measures to minimise MEs should be directed to improve prescribing competency among the fallible prescribers identified.

Background The use of herbal and dietary supplement (HDS) in health and disease management has gained global attention. HDS are generally accepted by the public and are associated with positive health behaviours. However, several reports have been documented with regards to their potential adverse effects and interaction with conventional medicines. Limited data is currently available on the use of HDS among elderly population in Malaysia. This present study aims to investigate the prevalence of and pattern of HDS use among a sample of community-dwelling elderly in a suburban town in Malaysia. Methods A cross-sectional survey was conducted between March and May 2019 among the elderly aged ≥60 years old. The participants with the following criteria were included in the study: aged ≥60 years, residing in Puncak Alam and able to understand Malay or English language. Data were collected using a pre-validated questionnaire. All statistical analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS ver. 23. Results Overall, 336 out of 400 elderly responded to the survey, achieving a response rate of 84%. This study observed that almost 50% of the respondents were using at least one type of HDS in the past one month of the survey. Among HDS non-users, most of them preferred to use modern medicines (62.6%, 114/182). Among the HDS users, 75.3% (116/154) were using at least one type of modern medicine (prescription or over-the-counter medicine). Multivariate analysis showed that having good to excellent perceived health (adjusted OR = 2.666, 95% CI = 1.592–4.464), having felt sick at least once in the past one month (adjusted OR = 2.500, 95% CI = 1.426–4.383), and lower body mass index (adjusted OR = 0.937, 95% CI = 0.887–0.990) were associated with HDS use. It was noted that only a small percentage of HDS users (16.2%, 25/154) had informed healthcare providers on their HDS use. Conclusion The use of HDS is common among the elderly sampled. Hence, healthcare providers should be more vigilant in seeking information of HDS use for disease management in their elderly patients. Campaigns that provide accurate information regarding the appropriate use of HDS among the elderly are pertinent to prevent misinformation of the products.

BackgroundJournal advertising is used by pharmaceutical companies to disseminate medicine information to doctors. The quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in Australia and the US has been questioned in several studies. No recent evidence is available on the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in Australia and the US and no Malaysian data have been published. The aim of this study was to compare the quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in journal advertising in these three countries.MethodsA consecutive sample of 85 unique advertisements from each country was selected from journal advertising published between January 2004 to December 2006. Claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising were compared between the three countries.ResultsLess than one-third of the claims were unambiguous claims (Australia, 30%, Malaysia 17%, US, 23%). In Malaysia significantly less unambiguous claims were provided than in Australia and the US (P < 0.001). However, the unambiguous claims were supported by more references than other claims (80%). Most evidence was obtained from at least one randomized controlled trial, a systematic review or meta-analysis (Australia, 84%, Malaysia, 81%, US, 76%) with journal articles being the most commonly cited references in all countries. Data on file were significantly more likely to be cited in the US (17%) than in Australia (2%) and Malaysia (4%) (P < 0.001). Advertisements that provided quantitative information reported risk results exclusively as a relative risk reductionConclusionsThe majority of claims were vague suggesting poor quality of claims in journal advertising in these three countries. Evidence from a randomized controlled trial, systematic review or meta- analysis was commonly cited to support claims. However, the more frequent use of data that have not been published and independently reviewed in the US compared to Australia and Malaysia raises questions on the quality of references in the US. The use of relative rather than absolute benefits may overemphasize the benefit of medicines which may leave doctors susceptible to misinterpreting information.

Bionanotechnology is a branch of science that has revolutionized modern science and technology. Nanomaterials, especially noble metals, have attracted researchers due to their size and application in different branches of sciences that benefit humanity. Metal nanoparticles can be synthesized using green methods, which are good for the environment, economically viable, and facilitate synthesis. Due to their size and form, gold nanoparticles have become significant. Plant materials are of particular interest in the synthesis and manufacture of theranostic gold nanoparticles (NPs), which have been generated using various materials. On the other hand, chemically produced nanoparticles have several drawbacks in terms of cost, toxicity, and effectiveness. A plant-mediated integration of metallic nanoparticles has been developed in the field of nanotechnology to overcome the drawbacks of traditional synthesis, such as physical and synthetic strategies. Nanomaterials′ tunable features make them sophisticated tools in the biomedical platform, especially for developing new diagnostics and therapeutics for malignancy, neurodegenerative, and other chronic disorders. Therefore, this review outlines the theranostic approach, the different plant materials utilized in theranostic applications, and future directions based on current breakthroughs in these fields.