Editor—In reporting the study by Prosser et al, Dobson highlights the finding that the pharmaceutical industry is the most common source of prescribing information for general practitioners.1,2 He misses the key point of this study: lack of time, information overload, and irrelevance of medical journals to general practice are the main barriers to general practitioners using the scientific literature. If we believe that the world of health care will be improved by directing general practitioners towards the scientific literature (a dodgy assumption) here are our seven magical steps for laying that path.
Allow general practitioners to take on the role of healer rather than that of social worker, plumber, and travel agent
Make general practitioners feel more valued by encouraging patients to give their doctors the same love and attention they heap on their pets
Make consultants and academics who whinge about general practitioners' prescribing spend one day in general practice; after this experience they'll soon stop whingeing
Rather than viewing the pharmaceutical industry as a carbuncle on the face of evidence based medicine, learn from how they communicate with general practitioners
Ask authors of papers to think more about their readers and less about their careers
Get editors to reserve page 3 of their journals for saucy pictures
Make scientific journals have prize draws of £500 000—to pay for this they can use the money they make from the pharmaceutical industry in advertisements and reprints.
Footnotes
Competing interests: ML left general practice because he did not have enough time to read the scientific literature. SK has just returned to general practice after a four year absence because she is bored with reading the scientific literature.
References
- 1.Dobson R. Pharmaceutical industry is main influence in GP prescribing. BMJ. 2003;326:301. . (8 February.) [Google Scholar]
- 2.Prosser H, Almond S, Walley T. Influences on GPs' decision to prescribe new drugs–the importance of who says what. Fam Pract. 2003;20:61–68. doi: 10.1093/fampra/20.1.61. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]