Patients expect transparency in doctors’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry

Tattersall, Martin H. N.; Dimoska, Aneta; Gan, Kevin

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2009.tb02277.x

Cited by 45 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…13 Perhaps some might interpret receiving money from industry as beneficial, and do not mind if their physician is involved in innovation or consulting 7,8 whereas others may interpret this as undue influence. 2 Grady, et al demonstrated that a percentage of their patient cohort felt that the payments physicians received was a “private matter.” 14 Some patients want full disclosure of financial relationships, 15 although others have reported in studies that they would still participate in research regardless of the involvement of their doctors in industry. 7,8,16 In a contrasting study, Kim et al, found that 64–87% of subjects in a research trial wanted to know the financial influences of the researchers.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act

Chang

2015

Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective/Purpose To review data for ophthalmologists published online from the Physician Payments Sunshine Act. Design Retrospective data review using a publicly available electronic database Methods: Main Outcome Measures A database was downloaded from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) Website under Identified General Payments to Physicians and a primary specialty of ophthalmology. Basic statistical analysis was performed including mean, median and range of payments for both single payments and per provider. Data were also summarized by category of payment, geographic region and compared with other surgical subspecialties. Results From August 1, 2013 to December 31, 2013, a total of 55,996 individual payments were reported to 9,855 ophthalmologists for a total of $10,926,447. The mean amount received in a single payment was $195.13 (range $0.04–$193,073). The mean amount received per physician ID was $1,108 (range $1–$397,849) and median amount $112.01. Consulting fees made up the largest percentage of fees. There was not a large difference in payments received by region. The mean payments for the subspecialties of dermatology, neurosurgery, orthopedic surgery and urology ranged from $954–$6,980, and median payments in each field by provider identifier ranged from $88–$173. Conclusions A large amount of data was released by CMS for the Physician Payment Sunshine Act. In ophthalmology, mean and median payments per physician did not vary greatly from other surgical subspecialties. Most single payments were under $100, and most physicians received less than $500 in total payments. Payments for consulting made up the largest category of spending. How this affects patient perception, patient care and medical costs warrants further study.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act

Chang

2015

Ophthalmology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…[7, 50, 52, 53, 55, 58, 60, 63] The response rate was not reported for three studies [49, 57, 64] and varied across the remaining from 8.8% to 96%. The single qualitative study was judged to have met most of the CASP checklist.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo systematically review the evidence on the knowledge, beliefs, and attitudes of patients and the general public towards the interactions of physicians with the pharmaceutical and the device industry.MethodsWe included quantitative and qualitative studies addressing any type of interactions between physicians and the industry. We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE in August 2015. Two reviewers independently completed data selection, data extraction and assessment of methodological features. We summarized the findings narratively stratified by type of interaction, outcome and country.ResultsOf the 11,902 identified citations, 20 studies met the eligibility criteria. Many studies failed to meet safeguards for protecting from bias. In studies focusing on physicians and the pharmaceutical industry, the percentages of participants reporting awareness was higher for office-use gifts relative to personal gifts. Also, participants were more accepting of educational and office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. The findings were heterogeneous for the perceived effects of physician-industry interactions on prescribing behavior, quality and cost of care. Generally, participants supported physicians’ disclosure of interactions through easy-to-read printed documents and verbally. In studies focusing on surgeons and device manufacturers, the majority of patients felt their care would improve or not be affected if surgeons interacted with the device industry. Also, they felt surgeons would make the best choices for their health, regardless of financial relationship with the industry. Participants generally supported regulation of surgeon-industry interactions, preferably through professional rather than governmental bodies.ConclusionThe awareness of participants was low for physicians’ receipt of personal gifts. Participants also reported greater acceptability and fewer perceived influence for office-use gifts compared to personal gifts. Overall, there appears to be lower awareness, less concern and more acceptance of surgeon-device industry interactions relative to physician-pharmaceutical industry interactions. We discuss the implications of the findings at the patient, provider, organizational, and systems level.

show abstract

“…Distrust is also increasingly expressed towards scientific and medical research, the foundation of the medical profession, because of the influence of pharmaceutical industry and physician‐researcher conflicts of interest . Patients are not necessarily made aware of doctor's pharmaceutical company engagements or financial incentives to enrol patients into funded trials . Frequent high‐profile cases of academic misconduct drive an increasing number of journal article retractions .…”

Section: Trust In Medical Education and Health Carementioning

confidence: 99%

Trust and risk: a model for medical education

2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In workplace learning and assessment, the language of 'trust' may offer a more authentic and practical vocabulary than that of 'competency' because clinical and professional risks are explicitly considered. There are many other trust relationships in health care and medical education. At the most basic level, it is helpful to clearly delineate who is the trustor, the trustee, and for what task. Each relationship has interpersonal and organisational elements. Understanding and considered utilisation of trust and control mechanisms in health care and medical education may lead to systems that maturely manage risk while actively encouraging trust and empowerment.

show abstract

Patients expect transparency in doctors’ relationships with the pharmaceutical industry

Cited by 45 publications

References 25 publications

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act

The Physician Payments Sunshine Act

Knowledge, Beliefs and Attitudes of Patients and the General Public towards the Interactions of Physicians with the Pharmaceutical and the Device Industry: A Systematic Review

Trust and risk: a model for medical education

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About