Table 1.

Odds ratios of general practitioners seeing drug industry representatives at least once a week in univariable and adjusted multivariable logistic regression models

		Univariable model*		Adjusted multivariable model†
Variable	Response category	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P value	Odds ratio (95% CI)	P value
Process of consultation
When faced with a patient who expects a prescription (which is not clinically indicated) my usual response is to:	Agree readily or reluctantly	1.00		1.00	0.012
	Discuss, but not prescribe	0.63 (0.49 to 0.82)	<0.001	0.63 (0.44 to 0.90)
I feel that a patient consultation that ends with me giving advice only is:	Very satisfactory	0.51 (0.39 to 0.66)		0.56 (0.38 to 0.82)	0.003
	Unsatisfactory or satisfactory	1.00	<0.001	1.00
When a new drug becomes available what I do most commonly is:	Seek published findings of effectiveness	0.38 (0.25 to 0.57)	<0.001	0.54 (0.36 to 0.82)	<0.001
	Wait and see what colleagues do	0.33 (0.22 to 0.48)		0.39 (0.24 to 0.65)
	Use on a few patients and monitor	1.00		1.00
In what proportion of your consultations do you feel frustrated by having too little time	(Odds ratio per 10 unit increase)	1.05 (1.00 to 1.14)	0.074	1.05 (0.97 to 1.13)	0.212
Sources of information about prescribed drugs
When I receive written promotional material from drug companies I usually:	Never read it	0.28 (0.20 to 0.38)	<0.001	0.44 (0.27 to 0.72)	0.001
	Read some or all of it	1.00		1.00
I find myself reading drug adverts in journals:	Rarely or never	0.33 (0.25 to 0.42)	<0.001	0.41 (0.28 to 0.59)	<0.001
	Sometimes or often	1.00		1.00
When I am uncertain about an aspect of drug treatment, my first action, before I write the prescription is to:	Check in BNF	0.06 (0.46 to 0.77)	<0.001	0.88 (0.59 to 1.31)	0.535
	Other	1.00		1.00
I follow the advice of hospital consultants in deciding which drugs to use for my patients:	Very often or often	1.00		1.00
	Sometimes, rarely, or never	0.80 (0.62 to 1.03)	0.078	0.84 (0.57 to 1.23)	0.357
Attitudes towards criticism of prescribing practices
I avoid questioning colleagues who appear to be prescribing inappropriately:	Strongly disagree or disagree	0.67 (0.51 to 0.87)	0.003	0.77 (0.52 to 1.14)	0.191
	Strongly agree, agree, or neutral	1.00	-	-	-
	Singlehanded general practitioner	2.33 (1.46 to 3.70)	<0.001
I find criticism of my prescribing habits by my colleagues:	Very useful or useful	0.62 (0.46 to 0.84)	0.002	1.05 (0.67 to 1.63)	0.842
	Very unhelpful, unhelpful, or neutral	1.00		1.00
General practitioner and practice factors
Sex	Male			1.00
	Female			0.58 (0.39 to 0.87)	0.009
Log low income scheme index‡				1.55 (1.06 to 2.28)	0.026
No of general practitioners in practice	1			1.00
	2-4			0.96 (0.48 to 1.93)	0.007
	≥5			0.49 (0.24 to 1.00)
Are you a general practitioner trainer?	No			1.00
	Yes			0.34 (0.20 to 0.59)	<0.001
Age group (in years)	(<31, 31-35, 36-40, 41-45, 46-50, 51-55, 56- 60, 61-65, >65: odds ratio per age group step)			1.14 (0.97 to 1.34)	0.101
Dispensing status	No			1.00
	Yes			0.31 (0.11 to 0.87)	0.026
Occupational commitment	Full time			1.00
	Part time			0.56 (0.33 to 0.96)	0.034
Length of service	<5 years			1.00
	5-10 years			1.04 (0.50 to 2.14)	0.548
	11-20 years			0.87 (0.51 to 1.48)
	>20 years			1.36 (0.56 to 3.30)
Funholding status	No			1.00
	Yes			1.01 (0.65 to 1.56)	0.982

^*Univariable model for “When a new drug becomes available...” based on 916 responses. All other univariable models based on about 1090 responses with some variability (1069-1095) due to item non-response.

^†Adjusted multivariable model based on 768 responses. Adjustment was made for all variables in the model.

^‡A measure of deprivation based on the proportion of prescribed items that are exempt from prescription charges under the low income scheme.³