Cross-sectional examination of commercial milk formula industry funding of international, regional and national healthcare professional associations: protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Commercial milk formula manufacturers often emphasise their role in supporting infant and young child nutrition and breastfeeding, but their commercial goals to increase volume and profit margin of formula sales conflict with these declarations. Healthcare professional associations have an important role in healthcare worker education, shaping clinical practice. When healthcare professional associations enter into financial relationships with formula manufacturers, conflicts of interest arise, which may undermine education and practice that promotes optimal infant and young child feeding. The World Health Assembly calls on all parties to avoid such conflicts of interest, but it is uncertain how often this recommendation is followed. This protocol documents a systematic method to identify funding from the commercial milk formula industry among international, regional and national associations of healthcare professionals. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Using systematic search strategies in the Gale Directory Library and Google, we will identify international healthcare professional associations relevant to maternal and child health. Data regarding funding relationships with the commercial milk formula industry over the past 24 months will be extracted from the official websites or, in their absence, social media accounts by two independent analysts. The analysis will focus on the presence of conflict of interest or sponsorship policies and type of funding, such as sponsorship or payment for services. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study does not require ethical approval and will use data available in the public domain. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journal articles, at conferences and among the healthcare professional associations.

A survey of experts to identify methods to detect problematic studies: Stage 1 of the INSPECT-SR Project.

Background: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. Unfortunately, some published RCTs contain false data, and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs which have been conducted on a given topic. This means that any of these 'problematic studies' are likely to be included, but there are no agreed methods for identifying them. The INSPECT-SR project is developing a tool to identify problematic RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. The tool will guide the user through a series of 'checks' to determine a study's authenticity. The first objective in the development process is to assemble a comprehensive list of checks to consider for inclusion. Methods: We assembled an initial list of checks for assessing the authenticity of research studies, with no restriction to RCTs, and categorised these into five domains: Inspecting results in the paper; Inspecting the research team; Inspecting conduct, governance, and transparency; Inspecting text and publication details; Inspecting the individual participant data. We implemented this list as an online survey, and invited people with expertise and experience of assessing potentially problematic studies to participate through professional networks and online forums. Participants were invited to provide feedback on the checks on the list, and were asked to describe any additional checks they knew of, which were not featured in the list. Results: Extensive feedback on an initial list of 102 checks was provided by 71 participants based in 16 countries across five continents. Fourteen new checks were proposed across the five domains, and suggestions were made to reword checks on the initial list. An updated list of checks was constructed, comprising 116 checks. Many participants expressed a lack of familiarity with statistical checks, and emphasized the importance of feasibility of the tool. Conclusions: A comprehensive list of trustworthiness checks has been produced. The checks will be evaluated to determine which should be included in the INSPECT-SR tool.

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

INTRODUCTION: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INveStigating ProblEmatic Clinical Trials in Systematic Reviews (INSPECT-SR) project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare-related interventions. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: (1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, (2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, (3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in, (4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format and (5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The University of Manchester ethics decision tool was used, and this returned the result that ethical approval was not required for this project (30 September 2022), which incorporates secondary research and surveys of professionals about subjects relating to their expertise. Informed consent will be obtained from all survey participants. All results will be published as open-access articles. The final tool will be made freely available.

Investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of study effect estimates in meta-analyses of nutrition research.

We aimed to explore, in a sample of systematic reviews (SRs) with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes, whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available. We randomly selected SRs of food/diet and health-related outcomes published between January 2018 and June 2019. We selected the first presented meta-analysis in each review (index meta-analysis), and extracted from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We calculated the Potential Bias Index (PBI) to quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion. The PBI ranges from 0 to 1; values above or below 0.5 suggest selective inclusion of effect estimates more or less favourable to the intervention, respectively. We also compared the index meta-analytic estimate to the median of a randomly constructed distribution of meta-analytic estimates (i.e., the estimate expected when there is no selective inclusion). Thirty-nine SRs with 312 studies were included. The estimated PBI was 0.49 (95% CI 0.42-0.55), suggesting that the selection of study effect estimates from those reported was consistent with a process of random selection. In addition, the index meta-analytic effect estimates were similar, on average, to what we would expect to see in meta-analyses generated when there was no selective inclusion. Despite this, we recommend that systematic reviewers report the methods used to select effect estimates to include in meta-analyses, which can help readers understand the risk of selective inclusion bias in the SRs.

Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials: a meta-epidemiological study.

BACKGROUND: Researchers and decision-makers often use evidence from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the efficacy or effectiveness of a treatment or intervention. Studies with observational designs are often used to measure the effectiveness of an intervention in 'real world' scenarios. Numerous study designs and their modifications (including both randomised and observational designs) are used for comparative effectiveness research in an attempt to give an unbiased estimate of whether one treatment is more effective or safer than another for a particular population. An up-to-date systematic analysis is needed to identify differences in effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. This updated review summarises the results of methodological reviews that compared the effect estimates of observational studies with RCTs from evidence syntheses that addressed the same health research question. OBJECTIVES: To assess and compare synthesised effect estimates by study type, contrasting RCTs with observational studies. To explore factors that might explain differences in synthesised effect estimates from RCTs versus observational studies (e.g. heterogeneity, type of observational study design, type of intervention, and use of propensity score adjustment). To identify gaps in the existing research comparing effect estimates across different study types. SEARCH METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science databases, and Epistemonikos to May 2022. We checked references, conducted citation searches, and contacted review authors to identify additional reviews. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included systematic methodological reviews that compared quantitative effect estimates measuring the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions tested in RCTs versus in observational studies. The included reviews compared RCTs to observational studies (including retrospective and prospective cohort, case-control and cross-sectional designs). Reviews were not eligible if they compared RCTs with studies that had used some form of concurrent allocation. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Using results from observational studies as the reference group, we examined the relative summary effect estimates (risk ratios (RRs), odds ratios (ORs), hazard ratios (HRs), mean differences (MDs), and standardised mean differences (SMDs)) to evaluate whether there was a relatively larger or smaller effect in the ratio of odds ratios (ROR) or ratio of risk ratios (RRR), ratio of hazard ratios (RHR), and difference in (standardised) mean differences (D(S)MD). If an included review did not provide an estimate comparing results from RCTs with observational studies, we generated one by pooling the estimates for observational studies and RCTs, respectively. Across all reviews, we synthesised these ratios to produce a pooled ratio of ratios comparing effect estimates from RCTs with those from observational studies. In overviews of reviews, we estimated the ROR or RRR for each overview using observational studies as the reference category. We appraised the risk of bias in the included reviews (using nine criteria in total). To receive an overall low risk of bias rating, an included review needed: explicit criteria for study selection, a complete sample of studies, and to have controlled for study methodological differences and study heterogeneity. We assessed reviews/overviews not meeting these four criteria as having an overall high risk of bias. We assessed the certainty of the evidence, consisting of multiple evidence syntheses, with the GRADE approach. MAIN RESULTS: We included 39 systematic reviews and eight overviews of reviews, for a total of 47. Thirty-four of these contributed data to our primary analysis. Based on the available data, we found that the reviews/overviews included 2869 RCTs involving 3,882,115 participants, and 3924 observational studies with 19,499,970 participants. We rated 11 reviews/overviews as having an overall low risk of bias, and 36 as having an unclear or high risk of bias. Our main concerns with the included reviews/overviews were that some did not assess the quality of their included studies, and some failed to account appropriately for differences between study designs - for example, they conducted aggregate analyses of all observational studies rather than separate analyses of cohort and case-control studies. When pooling RORs and RRRs, the ratio of ratios indicated no difference or a very small difference between the effect estimates from RCTs versus from observational studies (ratio of ratios 1.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.15). We rated the certainty of the evidence as low. Twenty-three of 34 reviews reported effect estimates of RCTs and observational studies that were on average in agreement. In a number of subgroup analyses, small differences in the effect estimates were detected: - pharmaceutical interventions only (ratio of ratios 1.12, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.21); - RCTs and observational studies with substantial or high heterogeneity; that is, I2 ≥ 50% (ratio of ratios 1.11, 95% CI 1.04 to 1.18); - no use (ratio of ratios 1.07, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.11) or unclear use (ratio of ratios 1.13, 95% CI 1.03 to 1.25) of propensity score adjustment in observational studies; and - observational studies without further specification of the study design (ratio of ratios 1.06, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.18). We detected no clear difference in other subgroup analyses. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no difference or a very small difference between effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies. These findings are largely consistent with findings from recently published research. Factors other than study design need to be considered when exploring reasons for a lack of agreement between results of RCTs and observational studies, such as differences in the population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes investigated in the respective studies. Our results underscore that it is important for review authors to consider not only study design, but the level of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of RCTs or observational studies. A better understanding is needed of how these factors might yield estimates reflective of true effectiveness.

Context matters: using an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework to develop and encourage uptake of opioid deprescribing guideline recommendations at the point-of-care.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the development and use of an Evidence to Decision (EtD) framework when formulating recommendations for the Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guideline for Deprescribing Opioid Analgesics. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Evidence was derived from an overview of systematic reviews and qualitative studies conducted with healthcare professionals and people who take opioids for pain. A multidisciplinary guideline development group conducted extensive EtD framework review and iterative refinement to ensure that guideline recommendations captured contextual factors relevant to the guideline target setting and audience. RESULTS: The guideline development group considered and accounted for the complexities of opioid deprescribing at the individual and health system level, shaping recommendations and practice points to facilitate point-of-care use. Stakeholders exhibited diverse preferences, beliefs, and values. This variability, low certainty of evidence, and system-level policies and funding models impacted the strength of the generated recommendations, resulting in the formulation of four 'conditional' recommendations. CONCLUSION: The context within which evidence-based recommendations are considered, as well as the political and health system environment, can contribute to the success of recommendation implementation. Use of an EtD framework allowed for the development of implementable recommendations relevant at the point-of-care through consideration of limitations of the evidence and relevant contextual factors.

Obesity intervention evidence synthesis: Where are the gaps and which should we address first?

Health professionals and policymakers rely on evidence synthesized from high quality research studies. Yet, there remain unanswered questions about how to prevent and treat obesity. In this research project, international practice guidelines and Cochrane systematic reviews were examined in order to identify gaps in the synthesized obesity intervention evidence base. One hundred and forty-two partial or complete gaps were found. Systematic review questions to address these gaps were formulated and subjected to a prioritization consultation process with 36 international obesity expert stakeholders. Forty-three review questions were priority-assessed. The top 10 ranked review questions received support from at least 75.0% of stakeholders. The leading questions focused on preventive and community-based approaches, including those delivered through primary-care. Children within the context of their families were a highly-prioritized target group, as were persons with diabetes or disabilities. Experts also prioritized reviews to determine which elements of programs are the most effective, and by which mode they are best delivered. Experts recommended that negative, psycho-social, and longer-term outcomes be captured in reviews. We request reviewers and funders to strongly consider addressing the top 10 leading prioritized review questions presented here.

Corporate Influences on Science and Health-the Case of Spinal Cord Stimulation.

This Viewpoint discusses tactics by corporations to criticize scientific research that may be unfavorable to their industries, recently including the spinal cord stimulator industry.

Characteristics of Advanced Practice Nurses Receiving Top Industry Payments and Their Practice Settings: a Cross-sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The pharmaceutical industry promotes prescribing through the cultivation of key opinion leaders. Advanced practice nurses (APNs) are a growing and influential group of prescribers across generalist and specialty practice. Public reporting of industry payments to APNs allows for exploration of their influence within practice settings. OBJECTIVE: To understand the characteristics of APNs with top industry payments including their positions of influence and other payment recipients at the same address. DESIGN AND SETTING: Cross-sectional study of US national Open Payments reports of industry payments made between January 1, 2021, and December 31, 2021. PARTICIPANTS: APNs who received > $50,000 USD in industry payments for speaking, consulting, and honoraria ("personal fees"). MEASURES: Description of top APN recipients' practice setting type, clinical specialty, presence of other payment recipients, value of payments attributed to the same address, and top manufacturers and therapeutic categories associated with payments to top APN recipients. Structured content analysis of public-facing websites for evidence of APNs' clinical, research, and teaching leadership. RESULTS: A total of 99 APNs received > $50,000 USD in aggregate personal fees and a median $74,080 USD (IQR $57,303-101,702) in aggregate payments. They shared a practice setting with a median of 1 (IQR 0-5) physician and 0 (IQR 0-3) other APN payment recipients and were often the only (39%, 42/109) or the dominant (45%, 30/67) payment recipient in their practice setting. In total, 36% held clinical leadership positions, 25% led scientific research, and 18% had university appointments. Forty-two percent (37/88) owned a clinical practice, including cosmetic clinics (51%, 19/37) and mental/behavioral health clinics (24%, 9/37). CONCLUSIONS: Top APN payment recipients attracted high-value payments in practice settings and specialities associated with high-cost drug development; however, there may be little oversight of APNs' industry relationships. Policy development related to industry relationships must be inclusive of and responsive to the activities of interprofessional providers.

Health Effects of High-Concentration Cannabis Products: Scoping Review and Evidence Map.

Background. The concentration of pharmacologically active tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) in cannabis products has been increasing over the past decade. Concerns about potential harmful health effects of using these increasingly higher-concentration products have led some states to consider regulation of cannabis product THC concentration. We conducted a scoping review of health effects of high-concentration cannabis products to inform policy on whether the THC concentrations of cannabis product should be regulated or limited. Objectives. We conducted a scoping review to (1) identify and describe human studies that explore the relationship of high-concentration cannabis products with any health outcomes in the literature and (2) create an interactive evidence map of the included studies to facilitate further analyses. Search Methods. An experienced medical information specialist designed a comprehensive search strategy of 7 electronic databases. Selection Criteria. We included human studies of any epidemiological design with no restrictions by age, sex, health status, country, or outcome measured that reported THC concentration or included a known high-concentration cannabis product. Data Collection and Analysis. We imported search results into Distiller SR, and trained coders conducted artificial intelligence‒assisted screening. We developed, piloted, and revised data abstraction forms. One person performed data abstraction, and a senior reviewer verified a subset. We provide a tabular description of study characteristics, including exposures and outcomes measured, for each included study. We interrogated the evidence map published in Tableau to answer specific questions and provide the results as text and visual displays. Main Results. We included 452 studies in the scoping review and evidence map. There was incomplete reporting of exposure characteristics including THC concentration, duration and frequency of use, and products used. The evidence map shows considerable heterogeneity among studies in exposures, outcomes, and populations studied. A limited number of reports provided data that would facilitate further quantitative synthesis of the results across studies. Conclusions. This scoping review and evidence map support strong conclusions concerning the utility of the literature for characterizing risks and benefits of the current cannabis marketplace and the research approaches followed in the studies identified. Relevance of the studies to today's products is limited. Public Health Implications. High-quality evidence to address the policy question of whether the THC concentration of cannabis products should be regulated is scarce. The publicly available interactive evidence map is a timely resource for other entities concerned with burgeoning access to high-concentration cannabis. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(12):1332-1342. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2023.307414).

Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions.

Introduction: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) inform healthcare decisions. It is now apparent that some published RCTs contain false data and some appear to have been entirely fabricated. Systematic reviews are performed to identify and synthesise all RCTs that have been conducted on a given topic. While it is usual to assess methodological features of the RCTs in the process of undertaking a systematic review, it is not usual to consider whether the RCTs contain false data. Studies containing false data therefore go unnoticed and contribute to systematic review conclusions. The INSPECT-SR project will develop a tool to assess the trustworthiness of RCTs in systematic reviews of healthcare related interventions. Methods and analysis: The INSPECT-SR tool will be developed using expert consensus in combination with empirical evidence, over five stages: 1) a survey of experts to assemble a comprehensive list of checks for detecting problematic RCTs, 2) an evaluation of the feasibility and impact of applying the checks to systematic reviews, 3) a Delphi survey to determine which of the checks are supported by expert consensus, culminating in 4) a consensus meeting to select checks to be included in a draft tool and to determine its format, 5) prospective testing of the draft tool in the production of new health systematic reviews, to allow refinement based on user feedback. We anticipate that the INSPECT-SR tool will help researchers to identify problematic studies, and will help patients by protecting them from the influence of false data on their healthcare.

Understanding the Dynamics of More Restrictive Medicines Policy: A Case Study of Codeine Up-Scheduling in Australia.

BACKGROUND: There has been increasing concern over opioid-related harms across the world. In Australia in 2018, codeine-containing products were up-scheduled from over-the-counter access at pharmacies, to requiring a prescription. The drug regulator's decision to up-schedule was contentious and widely debated, due to the potentially large impact on consumers and healthcare professionals. This study aimed to analyse influences on the codeine up-scheduling policy. METHODS: This retrospective policy analysis used the Advocacy Coalition Framework (ACF) to understand how policy actors with shared beliefs formed adversarial coalitions to shape policy. Data were drawn from documents (regulator policy documents, public submissions, news reports, organisational media releases and position statements) and semi-structured interviews with 15 key policy actors. Codes were generated relating to policy processes and actor beliefs; broad themes included the role of health professionals, perceptions of opioids, impact on consumers, and the role of government in healthcare. RESULTS: Two coalitions in this policy subsystem were identified: (1) supportive [with respect to the up-scheduling], and (2) opposing. The key evident beliefs of the supportive coalition were that the harms of codeine outweighed the benefits, and that government regulation was the best pathway for protecting consumers. The opposing coalition believed that the benefits of codeine accessible through pharmacists outweighed any harms, and consumers should manage their health without any more intervention than necessary. The policy decision reflected the influence of the supportive coalition, and this analysis highlighted the importance of their public health framing of the issue, the acceptability of their experts and supporting evidence, and the perceived legitimacy of the up-scheduling process. CONCLUSION: Understanding these coalitions, their beliefs, and how they are translated through existing policy processes and institutions provides insight for those interested in influencing future health policy. Specific lessons include the importance of strategic frames and advocacy, and engagement with formal policy processes.

Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct.

BACKGROUND: This study aimed to investigate how strongly Australian university codes of research conduct endorse responsible research practices. METHODS: Codes of research conduct from 25 Australian universities active in health and medical research were obtained from public websites, and audited against 19 questions to assess how strongly they (1) defined research integrity, research quality, and research misconduct, (2) required research to be approved by an appropriate ethics committee, (3) endorsed 9 responsible research practices, and (4) discouraged 5 questionable research practices. RESULTS: Overall, a median of 10 (IQR 9 to 12) of 19 practices covered in the questions were mentioned, weakly endorsed, or strongly endorsed. Five to 8 of 9 responsible research practices were mentioned, weakly, or strongly endorsed, and 3 questionable research practices were discouraged. Results are stratified by Group of Eight (n = 8) and other (n = 17) universities. Specifically, (1) 6 (75%) Group of Eight and 11 (65%) other codes of research conduct defined research integrity, 4 (50%) and 8 (47%) defined research quality, and 7 (88%) and 16 (94%) defined research misconduct. (2) All codes required ethics approval for human and animal research. (3) All codes required conflicts of interest to be declared, but there was variability in how strongly other research practices were endorsed. The most commonly endorsed practices were ensuring researcher training in research integrity [8 (100%) and 16 (94%)] and making study data publicly available [6 (75%) and 12 (71%)]. The least commonly endorsed practices were making analysis code publicly available [0 (0%) and 0 (0%)] and registering analysis protocols [0 (0%) and 1 (6%)]. (4) Most codes discouraged fabricating data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], selectively deleting or modifying data [5 (63%) and 15 (88%)], and selective reporting of results [3 (38%) and 15 (88%)]. No codes discouraged p-hacking or hypothesising after results are known. CONCLUSIONS: Responsible research practices could be more strongly endorsed by Australian university codes of research conduct. Our findings may not be generalisable to smaller universities, or those not active in health and medical research.

Clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics: summary of recommendations.

INTRODUCTION: Long term opioids are commonly prescribed to manage pain. Dose reduction or discontinuation (deprescribing) can be challenging, even when the potential harms of continuation outweigh the perceived benefits. The Evidence-based clinical practice guideline for deprescribing opioid analgesics was developed using robust guideline development processes and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology, and contains deprescribing recommendations for adults prescribed opioids for pain. MAIN RECOMMENDATIONS: Eleven recommendations provide advice about when, how and for whom opioid deprescribing should be considered, while noting the need to consider each person's goals, values and preferences. The recommendations aim to achieve: implementation of a deprescribing plan at the point of opioid initiation; initiation of opioid deprescribing for persons with chronic non-cancer or chronic cancer-survivor pain if there is a lack of overall and clinically meaningful improvement in function, quality of life or pain, a lack of progress towards meeting agreed therapeutic goals, or the person is experiencing serious or intolerable opioid-related adverse effects; gradual and individualised deprescribing, with regular monitoring and review; consideration of opioid deprescribing for individuals at high risk of opioid-related harms; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons nearing the end of life unless clinically indicated; avoidance of opioid deprescribing for persons with a severe opioid use disorder, with the initiation of evidence-based care, such as medication-assisted treatment of opioid use disorder; and use of evidence-based co-interventions to facilitate deprescribing, including interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary or multimodal care. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THESE GUIDELINES: To our knowledge, these are the first evidence-based guidelines for opioid deprescribing. The recommendations intend to facilitate safe and effective deprescribing to improve the quality of care for persons taking opioids for pain.

The Devil they Knew: Chemical Documents Analysis of Industry Influence on PFAS Science.

Background: Per-and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) are a class of widely-used chemicals that persist in the environment and bioaccumulate in humans and animals, becoming an increasing cause for global concern. While PFAS have been commercially produced since the 1940s, their toxicity was not publicly established until the late 1990s. The objective of this paper is to evaluate industry documents on PFAS and compare them to the public health literature in order to understand this consequential delay. Methods: We reviewed a collection of previously secret industry documents archived at the UCSF Chemical Industry Documents Library, examining whether and how strategies of corporate manipulation of science were used by manufacturers of PFAS. Using well-established methods of document analysis, we developed deductive codes to assess industry influence on the conduct and publication of research. We also conducted a literature review using standard search strategies to establish when scientific information on the health effects of PFAS became public. Results: Our review of industry documents shows that companies knew PFAS was "highly toxic when inhaled and moderately toxic when ingested" by 1970, forty years before the public health community. Further, the industry used several strategies that have been shown common to tobacco, pharmaceutical and other industries to influence science and regulation - most notably, suppressing unfavorable research and distorting public discourse. We did not find evidence in this archive of funding favorable research or targeted dissemination of those results. Conclusions: The lack of transparency in industry-driven research on industrial chemicals has significant legal, political and public health consequences. Industry strategies to suppress scientific research findings or early warnings about the hazards of industrial chemicals can be analyzed and exposed, in order to guide prevention.

Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Patient-targeted interventions for opioid deprescribing: An overview of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: Deprescribing (reduction or cessation) of prescribed opioids can be challenging for both patients and healthcare professionals. OBJECTIVE: To synthesize and evaluate evidence from systematic reviews examining the effectiveness and outcomes of patient-targeted opioid deprescribing interventions for all types of pain. METHODS: Systematic searches were conducted in five databases with results screened against predetermined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Primary outcomes were (i) reduction in opioid dose, reported as change in oral Morphine Equivalent Daily Dose (oMEDD) and (ii) success of opioid deprescribing, reported as the proportion of the sample for which opioid use declined. Secondary outcomes included pain severity, physical function, quality of life and adverse events. The certainty of evidence was assessed using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. FINDINGS: Twelve reviews were eligible for inclusion. Interventions were heterogeneous in nature and included pharmacological (n = 4), physical (n = 3), procedural (n = 3), psychological or behavioural (n = 3) and mixed (n = 5) interventions. Multidisciplinary care programmes appeared to be the most effective intervention for opioid deprescribing; however, the certainty of evidence was low, with significant variability in opioid reduction across interventions. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence is too uncertain to draw firm conclusions about specific populations who may derive the greatest benefit from opioid deprescribing, warranting further investigation.

A critical review of methodologies used in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses.

Robust evidence from health policy research has the potential to inform policy-making, but studies have suggested that methodological shortcomings are abundant. We aimed to identify common methodological weaknesses in pharmaceutical pricing policy analyses. A systematic review (SR) of studies examining pharmaceutical pricing policies served as basis for the present analysis. We selected all studies that were included in the SR (n = 56), and those that were excluded from the SR due to ineligible study designs only (n = 101). Risk of bias was assessed and specific study design issues were recorded to identify recurrent methodological issues. Sixty-one percent of studies with a study design eligible for the SR presented with a high risk of bias in at least one domain. Potential interference of co-interventions was a source of possible bias in 53% of interrupted time series studies. Failing to consider potential confounders was the primary cause for potential bias in difference-in-differences, regression, and panel data analyses. In 101 studies with a study design not eligible for the SR, 32% were uncontrolled before-after studies and 23% were studies without pre-intervention data. Some of the methodological issues encountered may be resolved during the design of a study. Awareness among researchers on methodological issues will help improve the rigor of health policy research in general.