Quantification of Conflicts of Interest in an Online Point-of-Care Clinical Support Website
| Autor: | Stephanie S. Tilberry, Stephanie D. Nichols, Daniel Y. Chung, Ambica C. Chopra, Kaitlyn E. Sternat, Brian J. Piper |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Health (social science) Databases Factual Lymphoblastic Leukemia media_common.quotation_subject Point-of-Care Systems Disclosure 050905 science studies 0603 philosophy ethics and religion Medicare Article 03 medical and health sciences 0302 clinical medicine Clinical support Management of Technology and Innovation Health care medicine Humans 030212 general & internal medicine media_common Point of care Aged business.industry Conflict of Interest Health Policy Compensation (psychology) 05 social sciences 06 humanities and the arts Bioethics Payment United States 3. Good health Issues ethics and legal aspects Transparency (graphic) Family medicine 060301 applied ethics 0509 other social sciences Psychology business Medicaid 030217 neurology & neurosurgery |
| Zdroj: | Sci Eng Ethics |
| Popis: | Online medical reference websites are utilized by health care providers to enhance their education and decision making. However, these resources may not adequately reveal pharmaceutical-author interactions and their potential conflicts of interest (CoIs). This investigation: 1) evaluates the correspondence of two well-utilized CoI databases: the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Open Payments (CMSOP) and ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs (PDD) and 2) quantifies CoIs among authors of a publically available point of care clinical support website. Two data sources were used: the hundred most common drugs and the top fifty causes of death. These topics were entered into a freely available database. The authors (N = 139) were then input into CMSOP and PDD and compensation and number of payment were determined for 2013-2015. The subset of highly compensated authors that also reported “Nothing to disclose” were further examined. There was a high degree of similarity between CMSOP and PDD for compensation (R2 ≥ 0.998) and payment number (R2 ≥ 0.992). The amount received was 1.4% higher in CMSOP ($4,059,194) than in PDD ($4,002,891). The articles where the authors had received the greatest compensation were in neurology (Parkinson’s Disease = $1,810,032), oncology (Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia = $616,727), and endocrinology (Type I Diabetes = $377,388). Two authors reporting “Nothing to disclose” received appreciable and potentially relevant compensation. CMSOP and PDD produced almost identical results. CoIs were common among authors but self-reporting may be an inadequate reporting mechanism. Recommendations are offered for improving the CoI transparency of pharmaceutical-author interactions in point-of-care electronic resources. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|