Article

Ties that bind: multiple relationships between clinical researchers and the pharmaceutical industry.

Discipline of Clinical Pharmacology, School of Medical Practice and Population Health, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, Australia.
Archives of Internal Medicine (Impact Factor: 11.46). 11/2005; 165(21):2493-6. DOI:10.1001/archinte.165.21.2493
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT It is believed that pharmaceutical industry sponsorship of clinical research leads to the development of multiple ties between clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry. To quantify this relationship we conducted a survey of medical specialists listed in the Medical Directory of Australia in 2002 and 2003.
A questionnaire was mailed that elicited information about all aspects of research relationships between clinicians and pharmaceutical companies. The odds of reporting multiple additional ties (financial and professional) with pharmaceutical companies by clinicians who had an active research relationship were compared with those who did not. All clinicians who returned a completed questionnaire about their research activities were included in the study.
A questionnaire was mailed to 2120 medical specialists; 823 (39%) responded. Of these, 338 (41%) reported involvement in industry-sponsored research in the previous year. They were more likely than others to have been offered industry-sponsored items or activities valued at more than 500 AU dollars (>382 US dollars; odds ratio [OR], 3.5; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.6-4.7) and support for attending international conferences (OR, 5.4; 95% CI, 3.9-7.4). The strongest associations were seen for acting as a paid consultant to industry (OR, 9.0; 95% CI, 3.9-20.4) and for membership on advisory boards (OR, 6.9; 95% CI, 5.1-9.6). There was a strong relationship between research collaboration and accumulation of industry ties. For 1 additional tie the OR was 2.2 (95% CI, 1.2-3.8) and rose to 6.3 (95% CI, 3.5-11.1) with 3 ties and 41.8 (95% CI, 14.5-143.4) with 6 or more ties.
Medical specialists who have research relationships with the pharmaceutical industry are much more likely to have multiple additional ties than those who do not have research relationships. Institutional review should discourage clinical researchers from developing multiple ties.

0 0
 · 
1 Bookmark
 · 
67 Views
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few studies have reported the attitudes of both individual doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies. To investigate the attitudes of both doctors and members of the public toward the appropriateness of receiving particular 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies, and to consider whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. A survey questionnaire of medical specialists in Australia and a survey questionnaire of members of the public itemized 23 'gifts' (valued between AU$10 and AU$2500) and asked whether or not each was appropriate. Both medical specialists and members of the public believe certain 'gifts' from pharmaceutical companies are appropriate but not others. There was a tendency for members of the public to be more permissive than medical specialists. Although some professional guidelines place importance on the attitudes of the general public to 'gift' giving, and other guidelines give importance to a need for transparency and public accountability, we question whether public acceptability is a suitable criterion for determining the ethical appropriateness of 'gifts'. We suggest that more weight be given to the need for independence of clinical decision making, with empirical evidence indicating that even small 'gifts' can bias clinicians' judgments, and to important values such as the primacy of patient welfare, autonomy and social justice. We conclude that it is time to eliminate giving and receiving of promotional items between the pharmaceutical industry and members of health professions.
    Internal Medicine Journal 03/2010; 40(5):335-41. · 1.82 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Geoff Spurling and colleagues report findings of a systematic review looking at the relationship between exposure to promotional material from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of prescribing. They fail to find evidence of improvements in prescribing after exposure, and find some evidence of an association with higher prescribing frequency, higher costs, or lower prescribing quality.
    PLoS Medicine 01/2010; 7(11):e1000359. · 15.25 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: David Henry discusses a research article by Geoffrey Spurling and colleagues that examined the relationship between exposure to promotional material from pharmaceutical companies and the quality, quantity, and cost of prescribing.
    The International journal of risk & safety in medicine 01/2011; 23(1):7-10.

Full-text (2 Sources)

View
31 Downloads
Available from
Aug 23, 2013