• Online Features  This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • eTables  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citation map  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Citing articles on Web of Science (9)  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Medical Practice  • Conflict of Interest  • Medical Ethics  • Patient-Physician Relationship, Other  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Review  • Health Care Reform  • Alert me on articles by topic  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

A Systematic Review

Adam Licurse, BA; Emma Barber, BS; Steve Joffe, MD; Cary Gross, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):675-682.

Background  Despite increased demand for disclosure of physician and researcher financial ties (FTs) to industry, little is known about patients’, research participants’, or journal readers' attitudes toward FTs.

Methods  We systematically reviewed original, quantitative studies of patients’, research participants’, or journal readers' views about FTs to pharmaceutical and medical device companies. The MEDLINE, Scopus, and Web of Knowledge databases were searched for English-language studies containing original, quantitative data on attitudes toward FTs. We screened 6561 citations and retrieved 244 potentially eligible abstracts. Of these, 20 met inclusion criteria.

Results  Eleven studies assessed FTs and perceptions of quality. In clinical care, patients believed FTs decreased the quality and increased the cost of care. In research, FTs affected perceptions of study quality. In 2 studies, readers' perceptions of journal article quality decreased after disclosure of FTs. Eight studies assessed the acceptability of FTs. Patients were more likely to view personal gifts to physicians as unacceptable, compared with professional gifts. In 6 of the 10 studies that assessed the importance of disclosure, most patients and research participants believed FTs should be disclosed; in the other 4, approximately one-quarter believed FTs should be disclosed. Among the 7 studies assessing willingness to participate in research, approximately one-quarter of participants reported less willingness after disclosure of FTs.

Conclusions  Patients believe that FTs influence professional behavior and should be disclosed. Patients, physicians, and research participants believe FTs decrease the quality of research evidence, and, for some, knowledge of FTs would affect willingness to participate in research.

Author Affiliations: Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine (Mr Licurse, Ms Barber, and Dr Gross), and Yale Comprehensive Cancer Center (Dr Gross), New Haven, Connecticut; and Department of Pediatrics, Harvard Medical School, Cambridge, Massachusetts (Dr Joffe).

CiteULike    Connotea    Delicious    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

Public Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Moving the Policy Debate Forward
Eric G. Campbell
Arch Intern Med. 2010;170(8):667.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Reporting of Conflicts of Interest in Meta-analyses of Trials of Pharmacological Treatments
Roseman et al.
JAMA 2011;305:1008-1017.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Physical activity in the UK: a unique crossroad?
Weiler and Stamatakis
Br. J. Sports. Med. 2010;44:912-914.
FULL TEXT  

Public Disclosure of Conflicts of Interest: Moving the Policy Debate Forward
Campbell
Arch Intern Med 2010;170:667-667.
FULL TEXT