Dataset Information

Antipsychotic prescribing: do conflict of interest policies make a difference?

ABSTRACT: Academic medical centers (AMCs) have increasingly adopted conflict of interest policies governing physician-industry relationships; it is unclear how policies impact prescribing.To determine whether 9 American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC)-recommended policies influence psychiatrists' antipsychotic prescribing and compare prescribing between academic and nonacademic psychiatrists.We measured number of prescriptions for 10 heavily promoted and 9 newly introduced/reformulated antipsychotics between 2008 and 2011 among 2464 academic psychiatrists at 101 AMCs and 11,201 nonacademic psychiatrists. We measured AMC compliance with 9 AAMC recommendations. Difference-in-difference analyses compared changes in antipsychotic prescribing between 2008 and 2011 among psychiatrists in AMCs compliant with ? 7/9 recommendations, those whose institutions had lesser compliance, and nonacademic psychiatrists.Ten centers were AAMC compliant in 2008, 30 attained compliance by 2011, and 61 were never compliant. Share of prescriptions for heavily promoted antipsychotics was stable and comparable between academic and nonacademic psychiatrists (63.0%-65.8% in 2008 and 62.7%-64.4% in 2011). Psychiatrists in AAMC-compliant centers were slightly less likely to prescribe these antipsychotics compared with those in never-compliant centers (relative odds ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.94-0.97; P < 0.0001). Share of prescriptions for new/reformulated antipsychotics grew from 5.3% in 2008 to 11.1% in 2011. Psychiatrists in AAMC-compliant centers actually increased prescribing of new/reformulated antipsychotics relative to those in never-compliant centers (relative odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.35-1.44; P < 0.0001), a relative increase of 1.1% in probability.Psychiatrists exposed to strict conflict of interest policies prescribed heavily promoted antipsychotics at rates similar to academic psychiatrists and nonacademic psychiatrists exposed to less strict or no policies.

SUBMITTER: Anderson TS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4360919 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Antipsychotic prescribing: do conflict of interest policies make a difference?

Anderson Timothy S TS Huskamp Haiden A HA Epstein Andrew J AJ Barry Colleen L CL Men Aiju A Berndt Ernst R ER Horvitz-Lennon Marcela M Normand Sharon-Lise SL Donohue Julie M JM

Medical care 20150401 4

<h4>Background</h4>Academic medical centers (AMCs) have increasingly adopted conflict of interest policies governing physician-industry relationships; it is unclear how policies impact prescribing.<h4>Objectives</h4>To determine whether 9 American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC)-recommended policies influence psychiatrists' antipsychotic prescribing and compare prescribing between academic and nonacademic psychiatrists.<h4>Research design</h4>We measured number of prescriptions for 10 hea ...[more]

PMID: 25769055

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.ResultsThe response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.ConclusionMany more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.

Project description:BackgroundConflicts of interest (COI) jeopardize the validity of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs). When the Institute of Medicine promulgated COI policies in 2011, few organizations met these requirements, but it is unknown if organizations have improved their policies since that time. We sought to evaluate current adherence to IOM standards of COI policies.Methods and findingsWe conducted a retrospective document review of COI policies and CPGs from organizations that published five or more CPGs between January 1, 2018 and December 31, 2019. Organizations were identified via CPG databases. COI policies were obtained from an internet search. We collected data on i) the number of organizations that have COI policies specific to CPG development, ii) the number of policies meeting each IOM standard and iii) the number of IOM standards met by each policy. COI disclosures from five CPGs of each organization were assessed for adherence to IOM standards. Among the 46 organizations that published 5 or more CPGs, 36 (78%) had a COI policy. Standard 2.2b (requiring divestment of financial COI) was met least frequently, by 2 of 36 (6%) organizations. Standard 2.1 (requiring disclosure of COI) was met most frequently, by 33 of 36 (92%) organizations. A total of 31 of 36 (86%) organizations met 4 or fewer of the 7 IOM standards. Among the 16 organizations limiting COI to a minority of the CPG panel (standard 2.4c) and the 15 organizations prohibiting COI among chairs or co-chairs (standard 2.4d), 12 (75%) and 10 (67%) organizations violated the respective standard in at least one CPG. The main limitations of our study are the exclusion of organizations producing fewer CPGs and ability to assess only publicly available policies.ConclusionAmong organizations producing CPGs, COI policies frequently do not meet IOM standards, and organizations often violate their own policies. These shortcomings may undermine the public trust in and thus the utility of CPGs. CPG-producing organizations should improve their COI policies and their strategies to manage COI to increase the trustworthiness of CPGs.

Project description:BackgroundMedical students encounter pharmaceutical promotion from the very start of their training. Medical schools have an important role to play in educating medical students regarding the interactions between healthcare professionals (HCPs) and industry and in protecting them from commercial influence and conflict of interest (COI). In 2019, medical student associations in Belgium and abroad called for more preparation in dealing with COI and for a more independent medical training. As little information is available on the situation in our country, we undertook an assessment of conflict of interest policies at Belgium's medical schools. We relied on a methodology already used in studies from USA, Canada, Australia, France and Germany and adapted it to the Belgian context.MethodsWe identified 10 medical schools in Belgium. We searched the website of each medical school in November 2019 with standardized keywords for COI policies and learning activities on COI in the curriculum. The deans of medicine were invited to participate by sending us information that we could have overlooked during our web-based searches. We also consulted personal contacts within faculties among students and teachers. Based on a list of 15 criteria adapted from North American and French studies, we calculated a total for each faculty of medicine with a maximum score of 30 points.ResultsBy December 2019, we had gathered a set of written documents for four faculties of medicine (40%) containing policies with varying degrees of precision and relevance to our survey. We found elements of the curriculum addressing the COI issue for one faculty (10%). In all cases, these policies consisted of "moderate" initiatives with little or no "restrictive" elements. Only one faculty showed interest in our study by providing us with relevant information (10%). Half of the faculty notified us of their refusal to participate in the study (50%) and the other faculties either did not respond or did not provide us with any information (40%). The maximum score obtained was 3 out of 30 points with six faculties scoring 0 (60%).ConclusionThere is little transparency regarding interactions between medical students and pharmaceutical companies at Belgian medical faculties, which may create COI issues. Initiatives to protect students from pharmaceutical promotion and to train them to manage their future interaction with pharmaceutical companies have a limited scope and are isolated. This is inconsistent with international recommendations from Health Action International, World Health Organization or the American Medical Students' Association. The Belgian government has legislated in favor of more transparency in the relation between HCPs and pharmaceutical industry. Indeed, it made the disclosure of benefits granted by the industry compulsory and limited their value. Our results show that there is still some way to go to ensure an independent medical training for future Belgian physicians.

Project description:BACKGROUND:There are 32 teaching hospitals in France, including 30 University hospitals and two Regional teaching hospitals. Teaching hospitals have three roles: health care provision, training of healthcare professionals, and medical research. These roles lead to frequent interactions with pharmaceutical and medical device companies, inevitably raising risks of conflicts of interests. Therefore, policies to manage conflict of interests (COI) are crucial. This study aims to examine COI policies in French teaching hospitals. METHODS:All French teaching hospitals (n = 32) were included in this study. All hospitals websites were screened for institutional COI policies and curriculum on COI, using standardized keyword searches. More data were collected through a questionnaire addressed to each chief executive officer (CEO) of the teaching hospital. We used predefined criteria (n = 20) inspired by similar surveys on COI policies in French, US and Canadian medical schools, with some additions to reflect the local hospital context. A global score for each hospital, ranging from 0 to 60 (higher scores denoting stronger policies) was calculated by summing points obtained for each criterion. RESULTS:All 32 hospitals had websites; 21 hospitals listed policies or regulations on their websites or provided them on request. In December 2017, 17 (53.1%) had rules and regulations for some items only, four of which (12.5%) have considered implementing a policy, and only two (6.3%) have begun implementation. 15 (46.9%) had no evidence of COI policies and a null score. The maximum score was 24 out of 60. CONCLUSION:This is the first systematic assessment of COI policies in teaching hospitals in France. Such policies are needed to protect patients, clinicians and students from undue commercial influence. Despite public and political pressure for better management of COI, few teaching hospitals have implemented comprehensive and protective policies, and some hospitals lacked policies altogether. These results highlight the need for greater attention to management of COI within teaching hospitals. One potential solution would be to integrate COI policies into hospital accreditation procedures, in order to ensure a baseline of management at all teaching hospitals.

Dataset Information

Antipsychotic prescribing: do conflict of interest policies make a difference?

Publications

Antipsychotic prescribing: do conflict of interest policies make a difference?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets