Non-Financial Conflicts of Interest in Academic Grant Evaluation: A Qualitative Study of Multiple Stakeholders in France

AP-HP, Hôpital Robert Debré, Unité d'Épidémiologie Clinique, Paris, France.
PLoS ONE (Impact Factor: 3.53). 04/2012; 7(4):e35247. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035247
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Peer review is the most widely used method for evaluating grant applications in clinical research. Criticisms of peer review include lack of equity, suspicion of biases, and conflicts of interest (CoI). CoIs raise questions of fairness, transparency, and trust in grant allocation. Few observational studies have assessed these issues. We report the results of a qualitative study on reviewers' and applicants' perceptions and experiences of CoIs in reviews of French academic grant applications.
We designed a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews and direct observation. We asked members of assessment panels, external reviewers, and applicants to participate in semi-structured interviews. Two independent researchers conducted in-depth reviews and line-by-line coding of all transcribed interviews, which were also subjected to Tropes® software text analysis, to detect and qualify themes associated with CoIs. Most participants (73/98) spontaneously reported that non-financial CoIs predominated over financial CoIs. Non-financial CoIs mainly involved rivalry among disciplines, cronyism, and geographic and academic biases. However, none of the participants challenged the validity of peer review. Reviewers who felt they might be affected by CoIs said they reacted in a variety of ways: routine refusal to review, routine attempt to conduct an impartial review, or decision on a case-by-case basis. Multiple means of managing non-financial CoIs were suggested, including increased transparency throughout the review process, with public disclosure of non-financial CoIs, and careful selection of independent reviewers, including foreign experts and methodologists.
Our study underscores the importance of considering non-financial CoIs when reviewing research grant applications, in addition to financial CoIs. Specific measures are needed to prevent a negative impact of non-financial CoIs on the fairness of resource allocation. Whether and how public disclosure of non-financial CoIs should be accomplished remains debatable.


Available from: Florence Tubach, Jun 07, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: There is increasing concern about the unreliability of much of health care evidence, especially in its application to individuals. Cognitive biases, financial and non-financial conflicts of interest, and ethical violations (which, together with fallacies, we collectively refer to as 'cognitive biases plus') at the levels of individuals and organizations involved in health care undermine the evidence that informs person-centred care. This study used qualitative review of the pertinent literature from basic, medical and social sciences, ethics, philosophy, law etc. Financial conflicts of interest (primarily industry related) have become systemic in several organizations that influence health care evidence. There is also plausible evidence for non-financial conflicts of interest, especially in academic organizations. Financial and non-financial conflicts of interest frequently result in self-serving bias. Self-serving bias can lead to self-deception and rationalization of actions that entrench self-serving behaviour, both potentially resulting in unethical acts. Individuals and organizations are also susceptible to other cognitive biases. Qualitative evidence suggests that 'cognitive biases plus' can erode the quality of evidence. 'Cognitive biases plus' are hard wired, primarily at the unconscious level, and the resulting behaviours are not easily corrected. Social behavioural researchers advocate multi-pronged measures in similar situations: (i) abolish incentives that spawn self-serving bias; (ii) enforce severe deterrents for breaches of conduct; (iii) value integrity; (iv) strengthen self-awareness; and (v) design curricula especially at the trainee level to promote awareness of consequences to society. Virtuous professionals and organizations are essential to fulfil the vision for high-quality individualized health care globally. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
    Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 11/2014; 20(6). DOI:10.1111/jep.12280 · 1.58 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: The American College of Chest Physicians Antithrombotic Guidelines ninth iteration placed restrictions on panelists with recommendations on which they disclosed a primary conflict of interest (COI). We aimed to describe panelists' financial and intellectual COI and evaluate to what extent, beyond assessing financial COI, assessing intellectual COI affected COI management. Study Design and Setting: We classified financial and intellectual COI into primary (causes voting restriction) and secondary (no restrictions). We analyzed disclosures respectively with panelists and recommendations as units of analysis. Results: One hundred two panelists made 4,030 disclosures for 431 recommendations. The median number (and range) of panelists per recommendation who disclosed the various categories of COI was 0 (0-5) for primary financial COI, 0 (0-4) for secondary financial COI, 0 (0-7) for primary intellectual COI, and 1(0-6) for secondary intellectual COI. Of the 431 recommendations, 63 (15%) had at least one panelist with a primary intellectual COI but no primary financial COI. Conclusion: COI had a relatively low prevalence and a skewed distribution, many panelists with none and some with many disclosures. A substantial number of disclosures should have resulted in restrictions based on intellectual COI in the absence of financial COI.
    Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 06/2014; 67(11). DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.05.006 · 5.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: As medical editors, we are faced with a host of ethical dilemmas on a daily basis. Most are recognised and dealt with expediently, but the few that remain must be challenged as a cohesive body of editorial opinion.
    Head & Neck Oncology 01/2012; 4(2):42. · 3.14 Impact Factor