Background: Sponsoring of physicians meetings by life science companies has led to reduced participation fees but might influence physician's prescription practices. A ban on such sponsoring may increase participation fees. We aimed to evaluate factors associated with physicians' willingness to pay for medical meetings, their position on the sponsoring of medical meetings and their opinion on alternative financing options.
Methods: An anonymous web-based questionnaire was sent to 447 general practitioners in one state in Switzerland, identified through their affiliation to a medical association. The questionnaire evaluated physicians' willingness to pay for medical meetings, their perception of a bias in prescription practices induced by commercial support, their opinion on the introduction of a binding legislation and alternative financing options, their frequency of exchange with sales representatives and other relevant socioeconomic factors. We built a multivariate predictor logistic regression model to identify determinants of willingness to pay.
Results: Of the 115 physicians who responded (response rate 26%), 48% were willing to pay more than what they currently pay for congresses, 79% disagreed that commercial support introduced a bias in their prescription practices and 61% disagreed that it introduced a bias in their colleagues' prescription practices. Based on the multivariate logistic regression, perception of a bias in peers prescription practices (OR=7.47, 95% CI 1.65-38.18) and group practice structure (OR=4.62, 95% CI 1.34-22.29) were significantly associated with an increase in willingness to pay. Two thirds (76%) of physicians did not support the introduction of a binding legislation and 53% were in favour of creating a general fund administered by an independent body.
Conclusion: Our results suggest that almost half of physicians surveyed are willing to pay more than what they currently pay for congresses. Predictors of an increase in physicians' willingness to pay were perception of the influence of bias in peers prescription practices and group practice structure. Most responders did not agree that sponsoring introduced prescribing bias nor did they support the
2
introduction of a binding legislation prohibiting sponsoring but a majority did agree to an independent body that would centrally administer a general fund.