Pharmaceutical industry payments and assisted reproduction in Australia: a retrospective observational study

Karanges, Emily A; Nangla, Conrad; Parker, Lisa; Fabbri, Alice; Farquhar, Cindy; Bero, Lisa

doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049710

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“… Introducing more granular disclosure of payments and recipients. Increasing the richness of disclosure data by expanding recipient characteristics, following the example of the Australian pharmaceutical industry trade group [ 173 ]. Introducing additional standards to prevent underreporting (mandatory declarations that no payments were made) and misreporting (mandatory recipient identifiers).…”

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Self-regulation of payment disclosure by pharmaceutical industry trade groups is a major global approach to increasing transparency of financial relationships between drug companies and healthcare professionals and organisations. Nevertheless, little is known about the relative strengths and weaknesses of self-regulation across countries, especially beyond Europe. To address this gap in research and stimulate international policy learning, we compare the UK and Japan, the likely strongest cases of self-regulation of payment disclosure in Europe and Asia, across three dimensions of transparency: disclosure rules, practices, and data. Results The UK and Japanese self-regulation of payment disclosure had shared as well unique strengths and weaknesses. The UK and Japanese pharmaceutical industry trade groups declared transparency as the primary goal of payment disclosure, without, however, explaining the link between the two. The rules of payment disclosure in each country provided more insight into some payments but not others. Both trade groups did not reveal the recipients of certain payments by default, and the UK trade group also made the disclosure of some payments conditional on recipient consent. Drug company disclosure practices were more transparent in the UK, allowing for greater availability and accessibility of payment data and insight into underreporting or misreporting of payments by companies. Nevertheless, the share of payments made to named recipients was three times higher in Japan than in the UK, indicating higher transparency of disclosure data. Conclusions The UK and Japan performed differently across the three dimensions of transparency, suggesting that any comprehensive analysis of self-regulation of payment disclosure must triangulate analysis of disclosure rules, practices, and data. We found limited evidence to support key claims regarding the strengths of self-regulation, while often finding it inferior to public regulation of payment disclosure. We suggest how the self-regulation of payment disclosure in each country can be enhanced and, in the long run, replaced by public regulation to strengthen the industry’s accountability to the public.

show abstract

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Increasing the richness of disclosure data by expanding recipient characteristics, following the example of the Australian pharmaceutical industry trade group [ 173 ].…”

Section: Conclusion and Policy Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…3 Researchers in Australia have used the information about payments to doctors that is posted on the website of Medicines Australia (MA) to examine interactions between medical professionals and pharmaceutical companies. [4][5][6] However, payments to medical societies are not included in the reports from companies to MA and therefore sponsorship of these organisations has not been studied. This study investigates sponsorship of Australian and New Zealand societies by healthcare companies.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sponsorship of Australian and New Zealand medical societies by healthcare companies: an observational study

Lexchin

2022

JRSM Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Summary Objectives To examine sponsorship of Australian and New Zealand medical societies by healthcare companies and whether societies have policies to deal with conflicts of interest. Design Cross-sectional study conducted in March 2022. Setting Australia and New Zealand Participants Medical societies in both countries. Main outcome measures The percent of medical societies that list sponsorship from healthcare companies on either their home webpages or the webpages of their annual meetings and/or that issue prospectuses to potential sponsors. The percent of societies with sponsorship that also have policies about their interactions with their sponsors. Whether societies feature their sponsors’ logos on their webpages and have hyperlinks to sponsors’ webpages and what percent of societies' annual revenue comes from sponsorships. Results Ninety-two medical societies were identified. Sixty-two had healthcare company sponsorship and 10 of the societies with sponsorship had policies to deal with interactions with their sponsors. Fifty-four societies displayed the logos of their sponsors on their home webpages and/or the webpages of their annual meetings. Only 6 societies provided enough information to calculate what percent of their revenue comes from sponsorships. For 5 of the 6 the percent was well below 50%. Conclusions The acceptance of sponsorships from healthcare companies by Australian and New Zealand societies is common and few societies have policies to deal with these relationships. In general, societies appear to get only a small percent of their annual revenue from sponsorships.

show abstract

Pharmaceutical industry payments and assisted reproduction in Australia: a retrospective observational study

Cited by 2 publications

References 22 publications

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency

Sponsorship of Australian and New Zealand medical societies by healthcare companies: an observational study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About