Physician-industry conflict of interest: public opinion regarding industry-sponsored research (original) (raw)
Related papers
BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020
Conflicts of interest (COIs) in healthcare are increasingly discussed in the literature, yet these relationships continue to influence healthcare. Research has consistently shown that financial COIs shape prescribing practices, medical education and guideline recommendations. In 2009, the Institute of Medicine (IOM, now the National Academy of Medicine) published Conflicts of Interest in Medical Research, Practice, and Education—one of the most comprehensive reviews of empirical research on COIs in medicine. Ten years after publication of theIOM’s report, we review the current state of COIs within medicine. We also provide specific recommendations for enhancing scientific integrity in medical research, practice, education and editorial practices.
Academic Emergency Medicine, 2009
The effective delivery and continued advancement of health care is critically dependent on the relationship between physicians and industry. The private sector accounts for 60% of the funding for clinical research and more than 50% of the funding sources for physician education. The nature of the physicianindustry relationship and the role of the physician as a gatekeeper for health care make this association vulnerable to abuse if certain safeguards are not observed. This article will review the current federal guidelines that affect the physician-industry relationship and highlight several illustrative cases to show how the potential for abuse can subvert this relationship. The recommendations and ''safe harbors'' that have been designed to guide business relationships in health care are discussed. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2009; 16:776-781 ª
2006
Conflicts of interest between physicians' commitment to patient care and the desire of pharmaceutical companies and their representatives to sell their products pose challenges to the principles of medical professionalism. These conflicts occur when physicians have motives or are in situations for which reasonable observers could conclude that the moral requirements of the physician's roles are or will be compromised. Although physician groups, the manufacturers, and the federal government have instituted self-regulation of marketing, research in the psychology and social science of gift receipt and giving indicates that current controls will not satisfactorily protect the interests of patients. More stringent regulation is necessary, including the elimination or modification of common practices related to small gifts, pharmaceutical samples, continuing medical education, funds for physician travel, speakers bureaus, ghostwriting, and consulting and research contracts. We propose a policy under which academic medical centers would take the lead in eliminating the conflicts of interest that still characterize the relationship between physicians and the health care industry.
A new survey to evaluate conflict of interest policies at academic medical centers
PloS one, 2017
A majority of academic medical centers (AMCs) have now adopted conflict of interest policies (COI) to address relationships with pharmaceutical and device industries that can increase the risk of bias in patient care, education and research. However, AMCs may have little information on the impact of their policies. This paper provides a new method, which is a free, publicly-available survey, to fill this information gap and improve COI programs at AMCs. The survey, piloted in three AMCs and designed in collaboration with national conflicts of interest policy experts, covers a range of universal compliance-related concerns, which allows institutions to tailor questions to align with their own policies and culture. The survey was low-burden, and provided important data for these AMCs to evaluate their policies. A descriptive analysis of the pooled pilot site data (n = 1578) was performed, which found that a majority of respondents did not have financial ties with industry and a majori...
What do Canadians think about physician–pharmaceutical industry interactions?
Health Policy, 2013
Background: Many health professional and regulatory groups have guidelines for identifying, disclosing and managing potential conflicts of interest (COI). The opinions of the Canadian public regarding what constitutes COI are unknown. Methods: Bilingual telephone survey in all provinces using a validated questionnaire on public opinions on physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions (POPPII). Adults 18 years or older were contacted using random digit dialing (RDD) with representative national sampling of households. Results were analyzed for predictors of opinions and were compared with the reference COI guideline. Two follow-up focus groups were held. Results: 1041 participants (56.8% female, mean age 52.6 years (SD 16.5), 18.2% francophone, 57.7% with post-secondary education) completed the survey. 34.0% reported a prior concern about physician-pharmaceutical industry relationships. Acceptability of interactions varied from high for requesting information about a particular drug or small gifts of obvious educational value to the patient, to mixed for free meals to listen to pharmaceutical industry personnel or payment to attend a conference, to low for research recruitment fees, personal use of medication samples or for using information not yet public about a new drug to make investment decisions. Age of the participant influenced ratings of acceptability. There was reasonable agreement (>60% participants) with only half of the related reference COI guideline statements. Conclusions: Public opinions on physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions differ depending on the scenario but suggest a significant level of concern regarding interactions involving direct financial benefit to physicians.
Internal Medicine Journal, 2005
AbstractBackground: There is extensive and varied interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession. Most empirical research concerns contact between individual physicians and industry, and reflects North American experience. We sought to clarify the extent and nature of relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and Australian medical organizations.Methods: We administered questionnaires to 63 medical organizations concerned with clinical practice, continuing medical education or professional accreditation, or the political representation of medical professionals.Results: Survey instruments were received from 29 organizations, giving a response rate of 46%. Seventeen of these organizations (59%) had received support from one or more pharmaceutical company in the past financial year. Support was predominantly for annual conferences, with some support for continuing medical education, research, travel and library purchases. The majority of organizations had an academic journal or newsletter, and 10 (34%) accepted revenue from pharmaceutical advertising. Twenty organizations (72%) had policies or guidelines covering their relationship with industry. Few organizations indicated that they would be unable to continue their activities without pharmaceutical industry support.Conclusion: These data indicate a high level of interaction between the pharmaceutical industry and medical organizations in Australia. While most organizations have policies for guiding their relationship with industry, it is unclear whether these are effective in preventing conflicts of interest and maintaining public trust. (Intern Med J 2005; 35: 206–210)
Physician–Industry Relations. Part 1: Individual Physicians
Annals of Internal Medicine, 2002
This is part 1 of a 2-part paper on ethics and physician-industry relationships. Part 1 offers advice to individual physicians; part 2 gives recommendations to medical education providers and medical professional societies.
Strengthening conflict-of-interest policies in medicine
Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 2010
Conflict-of-interest (COI) policies have played a vital role in protecting the integrity of science as well as protecting patients' welfare. However, the usefulness of these policies could be enhanced by addressing gaps in disclosure requirements, especially insofar as these gaps may impede the intended neutrality of COI policies. For example, current COI policies have not addressed potential conflicts created by indirect industry funding, such as when pharmaceutical companies provide general funding to researchers' academic departments or to medical educational programmes. Nor do they address the consequent creation of climates of opinion, which may marginalize important criticisms and undermine progress on this important policy issue. Methods The authors used a critical thinking approach to analyze the gaps in existing COI policies. Conclusion Taking the position that a more adequate system of checks and balances is needed, the authors offer specific recommendations for improving current policies and for addressing the issue of indirect support.
A National Survey of Physician–Industry Relationships
New England Journal of Medicine, 2007
Relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical, medical device, and other medically related industries have received considerable attention in recent years. We surveyed physicians to collect information about their financial associations with industry and the factors that predict those associations.