Should Pharmaceutical Companies Provide Health Education?

Pharmaceutical experts are used to staying in labs or behind counters, handing customers their prescriptions. Their role in patients’ lives is significant yet understated, with most communications printed on informational leaflets about the medication’s impacts. 

What would happen if pharmaceutical companies took an active role in educating the public on health-related topics? The possibility comes with pros and cons, but with a focus on efficacy and ethics, such an approach could benefit consumers. 

What Education Could Pharmaceutical Companies Provide?

Pharmacists and medication companies could teach the public critical health information — especially since they have more frequent, direct communications with customers than doctors and emergency service providers who only occasionally see many consumers. 

These experts could raise the medical literacy of general populations and publicize information on essential topics, including the following: 

• Disease awareness: Risk factors and how to identify symptoms and prevent spread
• Medication education: Side effects, research, drug interactions and use instructions
• Continuing education: Clinical trials, modern research and new best practices in patient care
• Community health accessibility: Public health projects and literacy campaigns

Pharmaceutical stakeholders on all levels could find creative ways to disseminate this information, whether by offering classes at a pharmacy or making patient-facing resources more approachable.

What Are the Pros and Cons of Pharmaceutical Company Involvement in Health Education?

While education on these topics could help the general public, there are a few other things to consider.

The Drawbacks

In surveys, 6% of respondents did not trust pharmaceutical manufacturers, and 27% said they sometimes distrust them. The same percentage of people could not determine whether or not they trust them. Skepticism could ruin any chance pharmaceutical professionals have at providing education since the most cynical customer will see the provider as educating with a commercial motive, offering inaccurate or self-serving information.

Pharmaceutical companies want to promote their products and protect corporate secrets, which runs the risk of overly subjective education. The ethical quandary could lead to more marketing opportunities for the medication maker instead of educational possibilities.

There are also regulatory challenges. Few guidelines exist for frameworks like this. Policymakers would need to create explanations on how to execute such a program without letting company interests get in the way. Compliance frameworks could enforce educational content and marketing boundaries and address legal concerns. However, these frameworks are currently minimal to nonexistent. 

The Advantages

In addition to having a more educated populace regarding health care subjects, patients and pharmaceutical companies could both gain more benefits from this educational transaction.

Medical journals have been steadily seeing lower readership. Research shows only 50% of patients had serviceable medical literacy, while 32% were inadequate. Pharmaceutical workers could be the intermediary to get more of these publications to the public. Readers could be more aware of recent research and advancements, making people more aware of the current health care climate.

Pharmaceutical companies also have expertise in tech and innovation as well as a wide customer demographic, meaning knowledge would be easily distributed. By connecting these two advantages, more people could experience digital health information and high-quality research. 

For instance, organizations could inform people how researchers use artificial intelligence (AI) to save lives. When drugs cost $2.6 billion to create, AI could reduce this cost by quickly synthesizing information. This example and others like it would allow people to see the impacts of tech in the medical field.

How Can Pharmaceutical Companies Ethically Educate?

If companies begin teaching, the content must be unbiased. Educators must undergo bias elimination training to make classes ethical and nonpromotional. A moral foundation establishes transparency from the beginning, disclosing the company’s involvement, funding and potential conflicts of interest. 

Once educators know how to overcome ethical dilemmas and the public trusts their teachers, the two parties can create long-term relationships by focusing exclusively on evidence-based information. The curriculum should also include peer-reviewed information, collaborative efforts and noncommercial sources.

In instances where the public resists learning about health care, medications and the industry because of fear or stress, businesses could leverage behavioral science to make information more digestible. Gamification increases wellness program participation by as much as 50%, which experts could incorporate into seminars, classes and conferences.

Education will only make a lasting impact if it prioritizes the patient over the product. Consumers will be more inclined to deliver feedback if they believe they gained something from the partnership. Constant evaluation of curriculum and other educational materials is crucial for improvement and ensuring regulatory compliance over time. 

A Conflict of Education

Pharmaceutical companies have an ever-growing well of useful knowledge for citizens. Ideally, this information would reach communities, raising health care literacy worldwide. The scenario can only happen with transparency and ethical policies that make knowledge sharing equitable and inclusive. These values could make pharmaceutical companies a powerful learning resource.