Key opinion leaders — a critical perspective

被引:0
作者
Jose U. Scher
Georg Schett
机构
[1] Division of Rheumatology,Department of Medicine
[2] NYU Grossman School of Medicine,Department of Internal Medicine
[3] Rheumatology and Immunology,undefined
[4] Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nuremberg and Universitätsklinikum Erlangen,undefined
来源
Nature Reviews Rheumatology | 2021年 / 17卷
关键词
D O I
暂无
中图分类号
学科分类号
摘要
Enormous progress has been made in the field of rheumatology in the past several decades, historically led by publicly funded academic innovators but in more recent times with much greater involvement of the pharmaceutical industry. This shift in resources has created a complex new model for reinvestment in the medical community in which the vast majority of private funds are redirected towards influencing the prescription behaviour of practitioners through ‘key opinion leaders’, with the main purpose of enhancing and perpetuating profit rather than innovation and critical thinking, and often at the expense of partnerships with scientists (that is, basic and translational researchers) and academic collaborations. This new episteme brings multiple opportunities to rethink approaches to sustaining long-term critical research in the field, ultimately maximizing the return on investment: scientific knowledge for the benefit of patients and society. Central to such strategies should be the rebalancing of academia–industry partnerships towards academic research and the involvement of ‘innovation and knowledge leaders’, rather than mostly key opinion leaders.
引用
收藏
页码:119 / 124
页数:5
相关论文
共 53 条
  • [1] Burmester GR(2017)Managing rheumatic and musculoskeletal diseases — past, present and future Nat. Rev. Rheumatol. 13 443-448
  • [2] Bijlsma JWJ(1942)Salazopyrin, a new sulfanilamide preparation. A. Therapeutic results in rheumatic polyarthritis. B. Therapeutic results in ulcerative colitis. C. Toxic manifestations in treatment with sulfanilamide preparations Acta Med. Scand. 110 577-598
  • [3] Cutolo M(1957)The diffusion of an innovation among physicians Sociometry 20 253-270
  • [4] McInnes IB(2013)Physicians under the influence: social psychology and industry marketing strategies J. Law Med. Ethics 41 665-672
  • [5] Svartz N(2008)Key opinion leaders: independent experts or drug representatives in disguise? BMJ 336 1402-1403
  • [6] Coleman J(2008)Hotel-based medicine J. Rheumatol. 35 1487-1488
  • [7] Katz E(1973)The Doctor Fox lecture: a paradigm of educational seduction J. Med. Educ. 48 630-635
  • [8] Menzel H(2017)The case of Dr. Oz: ethics, evidence, and does professional self-regulation work? AMA J. Ethics 19 199-206
  • [9] Sah S(2020)Covid-19 — a reminder to reason N. Engl. J. Med. 383 117-152
  • [10] Fugh-Berman A(2019)Public R&D investments and private-sector patenting: evidence from NIH funding rules Rev. Econ. Stud. 86 3-22