A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures

Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts 02120, USA.
New England Journal of Medicine (Impact Factor: 54.42). 09/2012; 367(12):1119-27. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa1202397
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effects of clinical-trial funding on the interpretation of trial results are poorly understood. We examined how such support affects physicians' reactions to trials with a high, medium, or low level of methodologic rigor.
We presented 503 board-certified internists with abstracts that we designed describing clinical trials of three hypothetical drugs. The trials had high, medium, or low methodologic rigor, and each report included one of three support disclosures: funding from a pharmaceutical company, NIH funding, or none. For both factors studied (rigor and funding), one of the three possible variations was randomly selected for inclusion in the abstracts. Follow-up questions assessed the physicians' impressions of the trials' rigor, their confidence in the results, and their willingness to prescribe the drugs.
The 269 respondents (53.5% response rate) perceived the level of study rigor accurately. Physicians reported that they would be less willing to prescribe drugs tested in low-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46 to 0.89; P=0.008) and would be more willing to prescribe drugs tested in high-rigor trials than those tested in medium-rigor trials (odds ratio, 3.07; 95% CI, 2.18 to 4.32; P<0.001). Disclosure of industry funding, as compared with no disclosure of funding, led physicians to downgrade the rigor of a trial (odds ratio, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.46 to 0.87; P=0.006), their confidence in the results (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.98; P=0.04), and their willingness to prescribe the hypothetical drugs (odds ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.94; P=0.02). Physicians were half as willing to prescribe drugs studied in industry-funded trials as they were to prescribe drugs studied in NIH-funded trials (odds ratio, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.71; P<0.001). These effects were consistent across all levels of methodologic rigor.
Physicians discriminate among trials of varying degrees of rigor, but industry sponsorship negatively influences their perception of methodologic quality and reduces their willingness to believe and act on trial findings, independently of the trial's quality. These effects may influence the translation of clinical research into practice.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study explored how disclosure of financial conflicts of interest (FCOI) influences naïve or "lay" individuals' perceptions of the ethicality of researcher conduct. On a between-subjects basis, participants read ten scenarios in which researchers disclosed or failed to disclose relevant financial conflicts of interest. Participants evaluated the extent to which each vignette represented a FCOI, its possible influence on researcher objectivity, and the ethics of the financial relationship. Participants were then asked if they had completed a college-level ethics course. Results indicated that FCOI disclosure significantly influenced participants' perceptions of the ethicality of the situation, but only marginally affected perceptions of researcher objectivity and had no significant influence on perceptions of the existence of FCOIs. Participants who had previously completed a college-level ethics course appeared more sensitive to the importance of FCOI disclosure than those who lacked such background. This result suggests that formal ethical training may help individuals become more critical consumers of scientific research.
    Science and Engineering Ethics 07/2014; DOI:10.1007/s11948-014-9572-6 · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • New England Journal of Medicine 09/2012; 367(12):1152-3. DOI:10.1056/NEJMe1207121 · 54.42 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Conflicts of interest (COIs) are common and important in cardiovascular medicine. Although COIs do not automatically lead to bias, conflicts between financial considerations, fame, promotion, etc., threaten valued interests such as objectivity, integrity, patient protection and cost-savings. Strategies for managing COIs include disclosure, limitations and eliminations, each of which is employed in varying degrees by universities, funding and regulatory agencies, journal editors, providers of continuing medical education and professional societies. This paper describes benefits and pitfalls inherent in each of these strategies. There is no "gold standard" for the dealing with COIs in cardiovascular medicine, but finding ways to manage unavoidable COIs without compromising the benefits of productive relationships between investigators and industry will be essential to preserving valued interests and public trust in the cardiovascular profession.
    Progress in cardiovascular diseases 11/2012; 55(3):258-265. DOI:10.1016/j.pcad.2012.10.006 · 4.25 Impact Factor