“Financial Ties Between DSM-IV Panel Members and the Pharmaceutical Industry,”

University of Massachusetts, Boston, USA.
Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics (Impact Factor: 9.2). 02/2006; 75(3):154-60. DOI: 10.1159/000091772
Source: PubMed


Increasing attention has been given to the transparency of potential conflicts of interest in clinical medicine and biomedical sciences, particularly in journal publishing and science advisory panels. The authors examined the degree and type of financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry of panel members responsible for revisions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders(DSM).
By using multimodal screening techniques the authors investigated the financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry of 170 panel members who contributed to the diagnostic criteria produced for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR.
Of the 170 DSM panel members 95 (56%) had one or more financial associations with companies in the pharmaceutical industry. One hundred percent of the members of the panels on 'Mood Disorders' and 'Schizophrenia and Other Psychotic Disorders' had financial ties to drug companies. The leading categories of financial interest held by panel members were research funding (42%), consultancies (22%) and speakers bureau (16%).
Our inquiry into the relationships between DSM panel members and the pharmaceutical industry demonstrates that there are strong financial ties between the industry and those who are responsible for developing and modifying the diagnostic criteria for mental illness. The connections are especially strong in those diagnostic areas where drugs are the first line of treatment for mental disorders. Full disclosure by DSM panel members of their financial relationships with for-profit entities that manufacture drugs used in the treatment of mental illness is recommended.

Download full-text


Available from: Lisa Cosgrove,
  • Source
    • "The DSM's classification of illnesses has financial impact for both pharmaceutical companies and association members. Nearly 70 percent of the members of the task force charged with assembling the next version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the DSM–5, have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, up from 57 percent for the previous version (Cosgrove, Krimsky, Vijayaraghavan, and Schneider, 2006; PLoS Medicine Editors, 2012). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) is examined in terms of the systems that define it and as a structure that creates the world around it. Considering ADHD as an aspect of the whole environment allows the assembly of partial and conflicting views to create a single, multi-faceted picture. The ADHD label is shown to be an emergent property that manifests the failure of the social, economic, therapeutic, and political parts of our culture. This approach provides a theoretical basis on which to analyze the diagnosis’s evolutionary path and to make predictions about its future.
    Journal of Mind & Behavior 11/2014; 35(1&2):21. · 0.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "This practice may foster an agenda where pharmaceutical companies write scientific articles in order to promote a certain drug treatment for a medical condition. In recent years it has also been revealed that members of the panels for DSM-IV and DSM-5 have financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry [76]–[77]. There is also the issue of non-publication of trials or exclusion of relevant data from published trials, risks leading to inaccurate recommendations for treatment [78]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Starting in the 1960s, a broad-based patients' rights movement began to question doctors' paternalism and to demand disclosure of medical information, informed consent, and active participation by the individual in personal health care. According to scholars, these changes contributed to downplay the biomedical approach in favor of a more patient-oriented perspective. The Swedish non-profit organization Consumer Association for Medicines and Health (KILEN) has offered the possibility for consumers to report their perceptions and experiences from their use of medicines in order to strengthen consumer rights within the health care sector. In this paper, qualitative content analysis was used to analyze 181 KILEN consumer reports of adverse events from antidepressant medications in order to explore patients' views of mental ill health symptoms and the doctor-patient interaction. Overall, the KILEN stories contained negative experiences of the patients' medical encounters. Some reports indicated intense emotional outrage and strong feelings of abuse by the health care system. Many reports suggested that doctors and patients had very different accounts of the nature of the problems for which the patient was seeking help. Although patients sought help for problems like tiredness and sleeplessness (often with a personal crisis of some sort as a described cause), the treating doctor in most cases was exceptionally quick in both diagnosing depression and prescribing antidepressant treatment. When patients felt they were not being listened to, trust in the doctor was compromised. This was evident in the cases when the doctor tried to convince them to take part in medical treatment, sometimes by threatening to withdraw their sick-listing. Overall, this study suggests that the dynamics happening in the medical encounter may still be highly affected by a medical dominance, instead of a patient-oriented perspective. This may contribute to a questionable medicalization and/or pharmaceuticalization of depression.
    PLoS ONE 06/2013; 8(6):e66338. DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0066338 · 3.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    • "many journals do not include disclosure statements in their articles or have only started recently, response rates in surveys were often low, and authors often do not to disclose conflicts in their scientific publications [26,27]. A few studies have used other sources such as US patent databases [22,28]. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Conflicts of interest affect recommendations in clinical guidelines and disclosure of such conflicts is important. However, not all conflicts of interest are disclosed. Using a public available disclosure list we determined the prevalence and underreporting of conflicts of interest among authors of clinical guidelines on drug treatments. Methods We included up to five guidelines published from July 2010 to March 2012 from each Danish clinical specialty society. Using the disclosure list of the Danish Health and Medicines Authority, we identified author conflicts of interest and compared them with the disclosures in the guidelines. For each guideline we extracted methodological characteristics of guideline development. Results Forty-five guidelines from 14 specialty societies were included. Of 254 authors, 135 (53%) had conflicts of interest, corresponding to 43 of the 45 guidelines (96%) having one or more authors with a conflict of interest. Only one of the 45 guidelines (2%) disclosed author conflicts of interest. The most common type of conflict of interest (83 of the 135) was being a consultant, an advisory board member or a company employee. Only 10 guidelines (22%) described the methods used for guideline development, 27 (60%) used references in the text and 11 (24%) graded the types of evidence. Conclusions Conflicts of interest were common, but disclosures were very rare. Most guidelines did not describe how they were developed and many did not describe the evidence behind specific recommendations. Publicly available disclosure lists may assist guideline issuing bodies in ensuring that all conflicts are disclosed.
    BMC Medical Ethics 05/2013; 14(1):19. DOI:10.1186/1472-6939-14-19 · 1.50 Impact Factor
Show more