Industry-sponsored educational programs are frequently a common part of professional learning after formal residency training, yet they often raise questions about potential bias regarding information presented, concerns about influence on prescribing patterns and transparency with the public. In light of ongoing discussions within Pennsylvania Psychiatric Society and larger profession about the role of pharmaceutical sponsorship, the Lehigh Valley Psychiatric Society used a recent industry-supported holiday educational dinner on Cobenfy as an opportunity to better understand how clinicians perceive these events. A brief, anonymous pre- and post-event survey was designed to capture attendees’ expectations going into the program and their reflections after experiencing it, focusing on perceived promotional intent, educational value, and comfort with industry engagement.

The survey was distributed to 10 attending psychiatrists and 10 resident-fellow members of the Lehigh Chapter of PaPS who had attended the holiday dinner with all attendees accepting the sponsored meal despite varying levels of comfort with industry funding. While most participants were generally comfortable with industry involvement in educational events, many still expressed reservations—acknowledging that sponsorship can influence prescribing and supporting the need for transparency and disclosure requirements. Although attendees believed they themselves were unlikely to be influenced by such programs, they were less confident that their peers would be unaffected. Survey responses suggested that clinicians entered the event with baseline skepticism about industry-sponsored education, generally recognizing that such programs can carry promotional intent while still offering clinically useful information. Following the presentation, attendees reported improved understanding of Cobenfy’s mechanism of action and targeted patient population. Despite a large amount of information being presented, participants expressed an inclination to seek independent, non-industry educational resources before prescribing, suggesting that the presentation was not viewed as sufficient on its own to drive clinical decision-making. Overall, the attendees appreciated the educational content on a new medication used in the treatment of schizophrenia but felt that comparative data with current treatments for schizophrenia was lacking.

Taken together, these observations challenge the assumption that industry-sponsored educational events necessarily increase prescribing enthusiasm about a promoted medication. After the event, post survey findings showed a shift toward preferring independent non-industry sponsored speakers. The event highlighted the importance of thoughtful program design, transparency, and speaker credibility in fostering balanced educational experiences. For institutions and professional societies, this raises useful questions: How can industry-supported programs be structured to encourage critical engagement rather than passive uptake? What role should independent speakers and supplemental educational resources play? We hope these findings prompt readers to reflect on their own engagement with industry-sponsored education and consider how similar initiatives might be implemented thoughtfully within their own institutions and professional societies.

Return to Previous Page