Critical Evaluation of Drug Promotional Literatures using who Criteria: An Observational Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.65129/health.v1i3.91Keywords:
Brochures, Drug Promotion Literature, Pharmaceutical Company, World Health OrganizationAbstract
Background: Drug Promotional Literatures (DPLs) are a primary source of drug information for healthcare professionals, particularly in resource-limited settings. However, concerns exist regarding their reliability, as they often contain biased or incomplete information. This study aimed to critically analyze 100 DPLs using WHO criteria to assess their adherence to ethical promotional practices. Methods: A cross-sectional, observational study was conducted at Tirunelveli Medical College Hospital, India, over four weeks (February–March 2024). DPLs were collected and evaluated using WHO criteria, including transparency of drug information, safety data, and promotional claims. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Results: While brand and generic names were universally present (100%), critical safety information was underrepresented: side effects (44%), contraindications (43%), and drug interactions (30%). Efficacy claims dominated (52%), whereas safety (24%) and cost-related claims (6%) were scarce. Only 54% of DPLs included visual aids, and 39% lacked scientific references. Conclusion: DPLs frequently deviate from WHO guidelines, emphasizing benefits over risks and omitting essential safety information. Regulatory reinforcement, prescriber education, and institutional review mechanisms are urgently needed to ensure DPLs support rational prescribing.
Downloads
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Health and Technology
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
References
1. Sarala N, Ganashree P, Bhuvana K. Critical review of drug promotional literature using the World Health Organization guidelines. J Res Pharm Pract. 2016; 5(3):162. https://doi.org/10.4103/2279-042X.185711 PMid:27512705 PMCid: PMC4966233.
2. Chaithra K, Sparshadeep E, Rajesh B, Priyadarshini B, Kavana G. Critical evaluation of drug promotional literature using the WHO guidelines: A hospital-based, cross-sectional, and observational study. Natl J Physiol Pharm Pharmocol. 2023; 14(02). https://doi.org/10.5455/njppp.2023.13.06332202307072023
3. Gautam SR, Chugh PK, Sah RKr, Tripathi CD. Critical appraisal of drug promotional literature using World Health Organization guidelines. Int J Basic Clin Pharmocol. 2017; 6(8):2014-2019. https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20173289
4. Vyas PP, Bhave AL. Critical appraisal of Drug Promotional Literatures (DPLs) as per World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. Int J Basic Clin Pharmocol. 2018; 7(2):238-243. https://doi.org/10.18203/2319-2003.ijbcp20180092
5. Shekhar DA, Roushan DR, Mishra DH, Hameed DS, Mohan DL, Dikshit DH. Drug Promotional Literature - A critical appraisal in a tertiary care teaching hospital in Eastern India. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res. 2022; 76(2):56-60. https://doi.org/10.47583/ijpsrr.2022.v76i02.011
6. Weltgesundheits organisation, editor. Ethical criteria for medicinal drug promotion. Geneva: World Health Organization. 1988. p. 16.
7. Rohra DK, Gilani AH, Memon IK, Perven G, Khan MT, Zafar H, et al. Critical evaluation of the claims made by pharmaceutical companies in drug promotional material in Pakistan. J Pharm, Pharm Sci Publ can soc Pharm sci soc. 2006; 9(1):50-9.
8. Watkins C, Moore L, Harvey I, Carthy P, Robinson E, Brawn R. Characteristics of general practitioners who frequently see drug industry representatives: national crosssectional study. BMJ. 2003; 326(7400):1178-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.326.7400.1178 PMid:12775618 PMCid: PMC156455.
9. Mali S, Dudhgaonkar S, Bachewar N. Evaluation of rationality of promotional drug literature using World Health Organization guidelines. Indian J Pharmocol. 2010; 42(5):267. https://doi.org/10.4103/0253-7613.70020 PMid:21206615 PMCid: PMC2959206.
10. Chisholm-Burns MA, editor. Pharmacotherapy principles & practice. Fourth edition. New York: McGraw-Hill Education; 2016. p. 1.
11. Othman N, Vitry AI, Roughead EE. Quality of claims, references and the presentation of risk results in medical journal advertising: a comparative study in Australia, Malaysia and the United States. BMC Public Health. 2010; 10:294. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-10-294 PMid:20509953 PMCid: PMC2895591.
