Disclosing conflicts of interest in patient decision aids

被引:10
作者
Barry, Michael J. [1 ]
Chan, Evelyn [2 ]
Moulton, Benjamin [1 ]
Sah, Sunita [3 ,4 ]
Simmons, Magenta B. [5 ]
Braddock, Clarence [6 ]
机构
[1] Informed Med Decis Fdn, Boston, MA 02108 USA
[2] Univ Texas Hlth Sci Ctr Houston, Dept Med, Houston, TX 77030 USA
[3] Georgetown Univ, Dept Strategy Econ Eth & Publ Policy, Washington, DC 20057 USA
[4] Harvard Univ, Edmond J Safra Ctr Eth, Boston, MA 02138 USA
[5] Univ Melbourne, Ctr Youth Mental Hlth, Orygen Youth Hlth Res Ctr, Parkville, Vic 3052, Australia
[6] Stanford Sch Med, Stanford Ctr Med Educ Res, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
关键词
PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANIES; THE-LITERATURE; DRUG TRIALS; CONSEQUENCES; QUALITY;
D O I
10.1186/1472-6947-13-S2-S3
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: In 2005, the International Patient Decisions Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration developed quality criteria for patient decisions aids; one of the quality dimensions dealt with disclosure of conflicts of interest (COIs). The purposes of this paper are to review newer evidence on dealing with COI in the development of patient decision aids and to readdress the theoretical justification and definition for this quality dimension. Methods: The committee conducted a primary systematic literature review to seek published research addressing the question, "What is the evidence that disclosure of COIs in patient decision aids reduces biased decision making?" A secondary literature review included a systematic search for recent meta-analyses addressing COIs in other spheres of health care, including research and publication, medical education, and clinical care. Results: No direct evidence was found addressing this quality dimension in the primary literature review. The secondary review yielded a comprehensive Institute of Medicine report, as well as four relevant meta-analyses addressing disclosure of COIs in health care. They revealed a broad consensus that disclosure of COIs is desirable in such areas as research publication, guideline development, medical education, and clinical care. Conclusions: The committee recommends the criteria that are currently used to operationally define the quality dimension "disclosing conflicts of interest" be changed as follows (changes in italics): Does the patient decision aid: .report prominently and in plain language the source of funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid? .report prominently and in plain language whether funders, authors, or their affiliations, stand to gain or lose by choices patients make after using the patient decision aid? Furthermore, based on a consensus that simple disclosure is insufficient to protect users from potentially biased information, the committee recommends that the IPDAS Collaboration consider adding the following criterion when the IPDAS consensus process is next conducted: "Does the patient decision aid: .report that no funding to develop or exclusively distribute the patient decision aid has been received from commercial, for-profit entities that sell tests or treatments included as options in the patient decision aid?"
引用
收藏
页数:6
相关论文
共 21 条
  • [1] [Anonymous], CONFLICT OF INTEREST
  • [2] Requirements and Definitions in Conflict of Interest Policies of Medical Journals
    Blum, Jared A.
    Freeman, Kalev
    Dart, Richard C.
    Cooper, Richelle J.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2009, 302 (20): : 2230 - 2234
  • [3] Managing Conflicts of Interest in Clinical Care: A National Survey of Policies at US Medical Schools
    Chimonas, Susan
    Patterson, Lisa
    Raveis, Victoria H.
    Rothman, David J.
    [J]. ACADEMIC MEDICINE, 2011, 86 (03) : 293 - 299
  • [4] Impugning the integrity of medical science - The adverse effects of industry influence
    DeAngelis, Catherine D.
    Fontanarosa, Phil B.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2008, 299 (15): : 1833 - 1835
  • [5] A review of decision support technologies for amniocentesis
    Durand, M. A.
    Boivin, J.
    Elwyn, G.
    [J]. HUMAN REPRODUCTION UPDATE, 2008, 14 (06) : 659 - 668
  • [6] Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process
    Elwyn, Glyn
    O'Connor, Annette
    Stacey, Dawn
    Volk, Robert
    Edwards, Adrian
    Coulter, Angela
    Thomson, Richard
    Barrat, Alexandra
    Butow, Phyllis
    Barry, Michael
    Mulley, Albert G.
    Sepucha, Karen
    Bernstein, Steven
    Clarke, Aileen
    Entwistle, Vikki
    Feldman-Stewart, Deb
    Holmes-Rovner, Margaret
    Llewellyn-Thomas, Hilary
    Moumjid, Nora
    Ruland, Cornelia
    Sykes, Alan
    Whelan, Tim
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2006, 333 (7565): : 417 - 419
  • [7] A Randomized Study of How Physicians Interpret Research Funding Disclosures
    Kesselheim, Aaron S.
    Robertson, Christopher T.
    Myers, Jessica A.
    Rose, Susannah L.
    Gillet, Victoria
    Ross, Kathryn M.
    Glynn, Robert J.
    Joffe, Steven
    Avorn, Jerry
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 367 (12) : 1119 - 1127
  • [8] Knowledge of ghostwriting and financial conflicts-of-interest reduces the perceived credibility of biomedical research
    Lacasse J.R.
    Leo J.
    [J]. BMC Research Notes, 4 (1)
  • [9] The Impact of Disclosing Financial Ties in Research and Clinical Care A Systematic Review
    Licurse, Adam
    Barber, Emma
    Joffe, Steve
    Gross, Cary
    [J]. ARCHIVES OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2010, 170 (08) : 675 - +
  • [10] The Unintended Consequences of Conflict of Interest Disclosure
    Loewenstein, George
    Sah, Sunita
    Cain, Daylian M.
    [J]. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2012, 307 (07): : 669 - 670