Dataset Information

What adolescents enrolled in genomic addiction research want to know about conflicts of interest.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Perspectives of adolescent research participants regarding conflicts of interest (COIs) and their impact on trust in researchers have not been studied. This study evaluates views of adolescent patients in treatment for substance and conduct problems compared to controls enrolled in genomic addiction research. METHODS:Participants included 273 (190 patients, 83 controls) adolescents. Participants consented or assented (with parental consent) to have their genomic information deposited in a NIH biobank that shares information globally with qualified investigators. As part of that study, participants completed a COI survey. Endorsement of each COI item was analyzed with multiple logistic regressions, evaluating group, age, sex, ethnicity, and highest grade completed. RESULTS:Patients and controls differed in gender, ethnicity and highest grade completed. In response to the survey, 38.4% of patients and 25.3% of controls "want to know" and 35.3% of patients and 37.3% of controls "might want to know" about COIs. Males were less likely to want/might want disclosure about COIs. Older patients were more likely to want disclosure about financial interests; patients were more likely to want disclosure about possible treatments; males were more likely to want information about monetary gains. Both groups requested between 1 paragraph and 1 page of information. Disclosure of COIs did not impact trust for most participants. CONCLUSION:Adolescent patients and controls in this study want comparable information for disclosure of COIs including monetary gains, salary, publications, grants, and professional awards. Notably, the majority of patients and controls report that disclosure will not undermine trust in researchers.

SUBMITTER: Coors ME

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4360983 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What adolescents enrolled in genomic addiction research want to know about conflicts of interest.

Coors Marilyn E ME Raymond Kristen M KM McWilliams Shannon K SK Hopfer Christian J CJ Mikulich-Gilbertson Susan K SK

Drug and alcohol dependence 20141215

<h4>Background</h4>Perspectives of adolescent research participants regarding conflicts of interest (COIs) and their impact on trust in researchers have not been studied. This study evaluates views of adolescent patients in treatment for substance and conduct problems compared to controls enrolled in genomic addiction research.<h4>Methods</h4>Participants included 273 (190 patients, 83 controls) adolescents. Participants consented or assented (with parental consent) to have their genomic informa ...[more]

PMID: 25577477

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionThe tobacco control community has raised some concerns about whether studies on electronic cigarettes (e-cigarettes) published in scientific journals hide conflicts of interest (COI) and whether such reports are biased. This study assessed potential COI in the e-cigarette scientific literature.MethodsCross-sectional study was conducted on e-cigarette publications indexed in PubMed up to August 2014. We extracted information about the authors (affiliations, location, etc.), publication characteristics (type, topic, subject, etc.), results and conclusions, presence of a COI statement, and funding by and/or financial ties to pharmaceutical, tobacco, and/or e-cigarette companies. An algorithm to determine the COI disclosure status was created based on the information in the publication. Prevalence ratios (PRs) and confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated to identify associations with COI disclosure, controlling for several independent variables.ResultsOf the 404 publications included in the analysis, 37.1% (n=150) had no COI disclosure statement, 38.6% declared no COI, 13.4% declared potential COI with pharmaceutical companies, 3.0% with tobacco companies, and 10.6% with e-cigarette companies. The conclusions in publications with COI, which were mainly tied to pharmaceutical companies, were more likely to be favourable to e-cigarette use (PR=2.23; 95% CI: 1.43-3.46). Publications that supported the use of e-cigarettes for both harm reduction (PR=1.81; 95%CI: 1.14-2.89) and smoking cessation (PR=2.02; 95% CI: 1.26-3.23) were more likely to have conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarettes.ConclusionsOne-third of the publications reporting studies on e-cigarettes did not have a COI disclosure statement, and this proportion was even higher in news articles, editorials and other types of publications. Papers with conclusions that were favourable to e-cigarette use were more likely to have COI. Journal editors and reviewers should consider evaluating publications, including funding sources, to determine whether the results and conclusions may be biased.

Project description:To establish the empirical evidence base for the information that participants want to know about medical research and to assess how this relates to current guidance from the National Research Ethics Service (NRES). Medline, Web of Science, Applied Social Sciences Index and Abstracts, Sociological abstracts, Health Management Information Consortium, Cochrane Library, thesis index's, grey literature databases, reference and cited article lists, key journals, Google Scholar and correspondence with expert authors. Original research studies published between 1950 and October 2010 that asked potential participants to indicate how much or what types of information they wanted to be told about a research study or asked them to rate the importance of a specific piece of information were included. Studies were appraised based on the generalisability of results to the UK potential research participant population. A metadata analysis using basic thematic analysis was used to split results from papers into themes based on the sections of information that NRES recommends should be included in a participant information sheet. 14 studies were included. Of the 20 pieces of information that NRES recommend should be included in patient information sheets for research pooled proportions could be calculated for seven themes. Results showed that potential participants wanted to be offered information about result dissemination (91% (95% CI 85% to 95%)), investigator conflicts of interest (48% (95% CI 27% to 69%)), the purpose of the study (76% (95% CI 27% to 100%)), voluntariness (39% (95% CI 2% to 100%)), how long the research would last (61% (95% CI 16% to 97%)), potential benefits (57% (95% CI 7% to 98%)) and confidentiality (44% (95% CI 10% to 82%)). The level of detail participants wanted to know was not explored comprehensively in the studies. There was no empirical evidence to support the level of information provision required by participants on the remaining seven items. There is limited empirical evidence on what potential participants want to know about research. The existing empirical evidence suggests that individuals may have very different needs and a more tailored evidence-based approach may be necessary.

Project description:BackgroundThe influence of the pharmaceutical industry and other stakeholders on medical science has been increasingly criticised. When dealing with conflicts of interest in scientific publications it is important to ensure the best possible transparency. The objective of this work is to examine the disclosure practice of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest in German language publications concerning health services research for the first time.MethodsWe performed a systematic literature search in the PubMed data base using the MeSH term "health services research". The review was conducted on July 10, 2006, setting the limits "dates: published in the last 2 years" and "languages: German" (only articles with abstracts). 124 articles in 31 magazines were found. In the magazines the instructions for authors were examined as to whether a statement on conflicts of interest is expected--and if, in which form. Regarding the articles in the journals which require a statement, we examined whether the statement is explicitly published. The results are descriptively represented.Results13 magazines (42%) do not require any statement on conflicts of interest, whereas 18 journals (58%) expect a statement. Two of these 18 magazines refer explicitly to the uniform requirements of the International Committee of the Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE); the remaining 16 magazines give differently accentuated instructions on how to disclose conflicts of interest, whereby the focus is primarily on financial issues. A statement on conflicts of interest is explicitly published in 11 of the 71 articles (15%) which are found in the magazines that require a statement with the submission of a manuscript. Related to the total number of included articles, this means that the reader explicitly receives information on potential conflicts of interest in 9% of the cases (11 of 124 articles). Statements of others that are involved in the publication process (reviewers, editors) are not available in any of the articles examined.ConclusionA better sensitization for possible conflicts of interest in German publications concerning health services research is necessary. We suggest tightening the criteria for disclosure in the instructions for authors in the scientific journals. Among other things the equivalent consideration of financial and non-financial conflicts of interest as well as the obligatory publication of the statements should be part of good practice.

Project description:ImportanceNonfatal opioid overdose may be a critical touch point when youths who have never received a diagnosis of opioid use disorder can be engaged in treatment. However, the extent to which youths (adolescents and young adults) receive timely evidence-based treatment following opioid overdose is unknown.ObjectiveTo identify characteristics of youths who experience nonfatal overdose with heroin or other opioids and to assess the percentage of youths receiving timely evidence-based treatment.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used the 2009-2015 Truven-IBM Watson Health MarketScan Medicaid claims database from 16 deidentified states representing all US census regions. Data from 4 039 216 Medicaid-enrolled youths aged 13 to 22 years were included and were analyzed from April 20, 2018, to March 21, 2019.ExposuresNonfatal incident and recurrent opioid overdoses involving heroin or other opioids.Main outcomes and measuresReceipt of timely addiction treatment (defined as a claim for behavioral health services, for buprenorphine, methadone, or naltrexone prescription or administration, or for both behavioral health services and pharmacotherapy within 30 days of incident overdose). Sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with receipt of timely treatment as well as with incident and recurrent overdoses were also identified.ResultsAmong 3791 youths with nonfatal opioid overdose, 2234 (58.9%) were female, and 2491 (65.7%) were non-Hispanic white. The median age was 18 years (interquartile range, 16-20 years). The crude incident opioid overdose rate was 44.1 per 100 000 person-years. Of these 3791 youths, 1001 (26.4%) experienced a heroin overdose; the 2790 (73.6%) remaining youths experienced an overdose involving other opioids. The risk of recurrent overdose among youths with incident heroin involvement was significantly higher than that among youths with other opioid overdose (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.62; 95% CI, 2.14-3.22), and youths with incident heroin overdose experienced recurrent overdose at a crude rate of 20 700 per 100 000 person-years. Of 3606 youths with opioid-related overdose and continuous enrollment for at least 30 days after overdose, 2483 (68.9%) received no addiction treatment within 30 days after incident opioid overdose, whereas only 1056 youths (29.3%) received behavioral health services alone, and 67 youths (1.9%) received pharmacotherapy. Youths with heroin overdose were significantly less likely than youths with other opioid overdose to receive any treatment after their overdose (adjusted odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83).Conclusions and relevanceAfter opioid overdose, less than one-third of youths received timely addiction treatment, and only 1 in 54 youths received recommended evidence-based pharmacotherapy. Interventions are urgently needed to link youths to treatment after overdose, with priority placed on improving access to pharmacotherapy.

Dataset Information

What adolescents enrolled in genomic addiction research want to know about conflicts of interest.

Publications

What adolescents enrolled in genomic addiction research want to know about conflicts of interest.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets