Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Addressing Conflicts of Interest in Health and Medicine: Current Evidence and Implications for Patient Decision Aid Development.
Thompson, Rachel; Paskins, Zoe; Main, Barry G; Pope, Thaddeus Mason; Chan, Evelyn C Y; Moulton, Ben W; Barry, Michael J; Braddock, Clarence H.
Affiliation
  • Thompson R; School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
  • Paskins Z; School of Medicine, Keele University, Keele, Staffordshire, UK.
  • Main BG; Haywood Academic Rheumatology Centre, Haywood Hospital, UK.
  • Pope TM; Centre for Surgical Research and National Institute for Health Research Bristol Biomedical Research Centre, School of Population Health Sciences, Bristol Medical School, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK.
  • Chan ECY; Health Law Institute, Mitchell Hamline School of Law, Saint Paul, MN, USA.
  • Moulton BW; Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA.
  • Barry MJ; Informed Consulting, LLC, Boston, MA, USA.
  • Braddock CH; Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Med Decis Making ; 41(7): 768-779, 2021 10.
Article in En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33966538
ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND:

More stringent policies for addressing conflicts of interest have been implemented around the world in recent years. Considering the value of revisiting conflict of interest quality standards set by the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration, we sought to review evidence relevant to 2 questions 1) What are the effects of different strategies for managing conflicts of interest? and 2) What are patients' perspectives on conflicts of interest?

METHODS:

We conducted a narrative review of English-language articles and abstracts from 2010 to 2019 that reported relevant quantitative or qualitative research.

RESULTS:

Of 1743 articles and 118 abstracts identified, 41 articles and 2 abstracts were included. Most evidence on the effects of conflict of interest management strategies pertained only to subsequent compliance with the management strategy. This evidence highlighted substantial noncompliance with prevailing requirements. Evidence on patient perspectives on conflicts of interest offered several insights, including the existence of diverse views on the acceptability of conflicts of interest, the salience of conflict of interest type and monetary value to patients, and the possibility that conflict of interest disclosure could have unintended effects. We identified no published research on the effects of IPDAS Collaboration conflict of interest quality standards on patient decision making or outcomes.

LIMITATIONS:

Because we did not conduct a systematic review, we may have missed some evidence relevant to our review questions. In addition, our team did not include patient partners.

CONCLUSIONS:

The findings of this review have implications for the management of conflicts of interest not only in patient decision aid development but also in clinical practice guideline development, health and medical research reporting, and health care delivery.
Subject(s)
Key words

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Conflict of Interest / Biomedical Research Type of study: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Med Decis Making Year: 2021 Type: Article Affiliation country: Australia

Full text: 1 Collection: 01-internacional Database: MEDLINE Main subject: Conflict of Interest / Biomedical Research Type of study: Guideline / Prognostic_studies / Qualitative_research / Systematic_reviews Limits: Humans Language: En Journal: Med Decis Making Year: 2021 Type: Article Affiliation country: Australia