Dataset Information

Managing conflicts of interest in the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines programme: qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is international concern that conflicts of interest (COI) may bias clinical guideline development and render it untrustworthy. Guideline COI policies exist with the aim of reducing this bias but it is not known how such policies are interpreted and used by guideline producing organisations. This study sought to determine how conflicts of interest (COIs) are disclosed and managed by a national clinical guideline developer (NICE: the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence).

Methods

Qualitative study using semi-structured telephone interviews with 14 key informants: 8 senior staff of NICE's guideline development centres and 6 chairs of guideline development groups (GDGs). We conducted a thematic analysis.

Results

Participants regard the NICE COI policy as comprehensive leading to transparent and independent guidance. The application of the NICE COI policy is, however, not straightforward and clarity could be improved. Disclosure of COI relies on self reporting and guideline developers have to take "on trust" the information they receive, certain types of COI (non-financial) are difficult to categorise and manage and disclosed COI can impact on the ability to recruit clinical experts to GDGs. Participants considered it both disruptive and stressful to exclude members from GDG meetings when required by the COI policy. Nonetheless the impact of this disruption can be minimised with good group chairing skills.

Conclusions

We consider that the successful implementation of a COI policy in clinical guideline development requires clear policies and procedures, appropriate training of GDG chairs and an evaluation of how the policy is used in practice.

SUBMITTER: Graham T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4374927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:From April 2015, NHS England (NHSE) started to devolve responsibility for commissioning primary care services to clinical commissioning groups (CCGs). The aim of this paper is to explore how CCGs are managing potential conflicts of interest associated with groups of GPs commissioning themselves or their practices to provide services.We carried out two telephone surveys using a sample of CCGs. We also used a qualitative case study approach and collected data using interviews and meeting observations in four sites (CCGs).We conducted 57 telephone interviews and 42 face-to-face interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and CCG staff involved in primary care co-commissioning and observed 74 meetings of CCG committees responsible for primary care co-commissioning.Conflicts of interest were seen as an inevitable consequence of CCGs commissioning primary care. Particular problems arose with obtaining unbiased clinical input for new incentive schemes and providing support to GP provider federations. Participants in meetings concerning primary care co-commissioning declared conflicts of interest at the outset of meetings. Different approaches were pursued regarding GPs involvement in subsequent discussions and decisions with inconsistency in the exclusion of GPs from meetings. CCG senior management felt confident that the new governance structures and policies dealt adequately with conflicts of interest, but we found these arrangements face limitations. While the revised NHSE statutory guidance on managing conflicts of interest (2016) was seen as an improvement on the original (2014), there still remained some confusion over various terms and concepts contained therein.Devolving responsibility for primary care co-commissioning to CCGs created a structural conflict of interest. The NHSE statutory guidance should be refined and clarified so that CCGs can properly manage conflicts of interest. Non-clinician members of committees involved in commissioning primary care require training in order to make decisions requiring clinical input in the absence of GPs.

Project description:BackgroundAuthors of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) disclose financial conflicts of interest (FCOIs) to promote transparency ethics. Typically, they do so on standard declaration forms containing generic open-ended questions on FCOIs. Yet, the literature is scant on the format and effect of alternative disclosure forms. Does supplementing a standard form with subsequent detailed disclosure forms tailored to the context of the CPG improve the yield or accuracy of FCOIs declarations?MethodsFor an international CPG in gastroenterology on the endoscopic surveillance for colorectal neoplasia in inflammatory bowel disease, we compared the use of a standard FCOIs disclosure form with a contextual FCOIs disclosure form that detailed commercial relations related to the CPG topic. This included manufacturers of endoscopes, endoscopy equipment and accessories. Participants completed the generic form early, and the supplementary contextual form six months later. We then compared the FCOI disclosures obtained.Findings26 participants provided FCOIs disclosures using both disclosure forms. We found discrepancies regarding (1) the disclosure of FCOIs (presence/absence), and (2) the listing of financial entities. While the number of participants who disclosed a FCOI remained the same (30.8%) using the two forms, disclosures were not from the same individuals: two additional participants disclosed a FCOI, whereas two participants withdrew previous disclosures. Among those who reported a FCOI in either form, we noted inconsistencies in disclosures for 70% of the participants. This included changes in FCOIs disclosure status or modifications of "their commercial relations".DiscussionAccurate reporting of FCOIs advances the transparency and ethical integrity of CPGs. Our experience suggests that a contextual FCOIs disclosure form tailored to content of the CPG with narrow, detailed questions provides supplementary, more complete FCOIs declarations than generic forms alone. The finding raises challenges on how forms are best written and formatted, optimally timed, and more effectively processed with sensitivity to professional behaviour, so as to heighten transparency.

Project description:ObjectiveTo characterise and analyse the experiences of trial researchers of if and how conflicts of interest had unduly influenced clinical trials they had worked on, what management strategies they had used to minimise any potential influence, and their experiences and views on conflicts of interest more generally.DesignQualitative interview study.ParticipantsTrial researchers who had participated in at least 10 clinical trials with methodological or statistical expertise. Researchers differed by geographical location, educational background, and experience with different types of funders. Interviewees were identified by searches on Web of Science and snowball sampling. 52 trial researchers were approached by email; 20 agreed to be interviewed.SettingInterviews conducted by telephone, recorded, transcribed verbatim, imported to NVivo 12, and analysed by systematic text condensation. Semistructured interviews focused on financial and non-financial conflicts of interest.ResultsThe interviewees had participated in a median of 37.5 trials and were mainly male physicians who had experience with commercial and non-commercial trial funders. Two predefined themes (influence of conflicts of interest and management strategies) and two additional themes (definition and reporting of conflicts of interest) emerged. Examples of perceived influence of conflicts of interest were: choice of inferior comparator, manipulation of the randomisation process, prematurely stopping the trials, fabrication of data, blocking access to data, and spin (eg, overly favourable interpretation of the results). Examples of strategies to manage conflicts of interest were: disclosure procedures, exclusion of the funder from design and analysis, independent committees, contracts ensuring complete access to the data, and no restriction by the funder on analysis and reporting. Interviewees used different definitions or thresholds for what they considered to be conflicts of interest, and they described different criteria for when to report them. Some interviewees considered non-commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding of trials by governmental health agencies with a political agenda) to be equally or more important than commercial financial conflicts of interest (eg, funding by drug and device companies), but more challenging to report and manage.ConclusionThis study described how trial researchers perceive conflicts of interest unduly influencing clinical trials they had worked on, and the management strategies they used to prevent these influences. The results indicated considerable variability in researchers' understanding of what conflicts of interest are and when they should be reported.