Dataset Information

Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.

ABSTRACT: Academic journals increasingly request a full disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI). The Committee for Publication Ethics provides editors with guidance about the course of action in the case of suspected non-disclosure. No prior study has examined the extent to which journal articles on psychosocial interventions disclose CoI, and how journal editors process requests to examine suspected undisclosed CoI. Four internationally disseminated psychosocial interventions were examined. 136 articles related to an intervention, co-authored by intervention developers and published in health sciences journals were retrieved as requiring a CoI statement. Two editors refused consent to be included in the study. COI disclosures and editor responses were coded for 134 articles. Overall, 92/134 (71%) of all articles were found to have absent, incomplete or partly misleading CoI disclosures. Disclosure rates for the four programs varied significantly between 11% and 73%. Journal editors were contacted about 92 published articles with no CoI disclosure or a disclosure that was considered problematic. In 65/92 (71%) of all cases the editors published an 'erratum' or 'corrigendum'. In 16 of these cases the journal had mishandled a submitted disclosure. The most frequent reason for non-publication of an erratum was that the journal had no disclosure policy at the time of the publication (16 cases). Consumers of research on psychosocial interventions published in peer-reviewed journals cannot currently assume that CoI disclosures are adequate and complete. More efforts are needed to achieve transparency.

SUBMITTER: Eisner M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4659631 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Eisner Manuel M Humphreys David K DK Wilson Philip P Gardner Frances F

PloS one 20151125 11

Academic journals increasingly request a full disclosure of financial conflict of interest (CoI). The Committee for Publication Ethics provides editors with guidance about the course of action in the case of suspected non-disclosure. No prior study has examined the extent to which journal articles on psychosocial interventions disclose CoI, and how journal editors process requests to examine suspected undisclosed CoI. Four internationally disseminated psychosocial interventions were examined. 13 ...[more]

PMID: 26606667

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceConflicts of interest (COI) disclosure policies are critical to enhancing the integrity of research. However, it is unclear how Chinese medical journals interpret and enforce such policies.ObjectivesThe goal of this investigation is to determine the current status of COI disclosure policy enforcement in Chinese medical journals and to promote comprehensive COI policies.MethodsIn this cross-sectional study conducted from September 1st to October 29th 2017, journal instructions, websites and print issues of journals indexed by the Core Journals of China (version 2014), in the medical and health sector, were reviewed to identify whether COI disclosure policies existed and how complete these policies were.ResultsOf 248 eligible journals, 78 (31%) mentioned COI policies; 9 (4%) applied standardized disclosure forms; 18 (7%) required disclosure statements in articles; 4 (2%) mentioned policy bases; none validated disclosed COIs; 2 (1%) mentioned how they dealt with breaches; 18 (7%) involved the management of disclosed COIs; and 62 (25%) and 55 (22%) noted financial and nonfinancial COIs, respectively. Seventy-eight journals (31%) mentioned COIs in research and authors' obligation towards disclosure; 2 (1%) and 6 (2%) mentioned family members' and institutional COIs, respectively. Twenty-two and 11 journals mentioned at least one form of financial and nonfinancial COI type in research, respectively. Seven journals (3%) required disclosure of the source of financial support in research, but no journals mentioned the amount of support. Seven (3%) and 12 (5%) journals mentioned COIs in the editorial process and peer-review, respectively. Clinical journals (45%) paid more attention to COI policies than non-clinical journals.ConclusionsApproximately one-third of Chinese medical journals had COI policies, and of the journals that mentioned financial COIs most required nonfinancial COIs. However, the extent to which journals implemented COI policies was insufficient. There is a generic lack of standardized disclosure forms and management of COIs in most journals. The subject and details of COIs involved in the editorial and peer-review process received less attention than those in research.

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To evaluate workshops delivered to citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interest in healthcare, transparency databases which disclose industry payments in the USA and Australia and the pros and cons of advocacy groups accepting industry sponsorship. DESIGN:Thematic analysis of workshop participant recorded discussions, and pre, post and 3-month follow-up questionnaires on confidence and knowledge about financial conflicts of interest, transparency databases and the merits of advocacy organisations accepting industry sponsorship. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING:48 citizen health advocates participated in a half-day workshop, held in four Australian cities, which ended with a 1-hour recorded discussion. Participants were recruited with assistance from leading state-based health advocacy organisations. RESULTS:The thematic analysis of the recorded discussions revealed two major themes, (i) transparency and (ii) relationships with industry; and three minor themes: a lack of awareness about conflicts of interest and transparency, issues relating to trust and next steps in terms of potential reforms. In relation to transparency, participants felt strong support for transparency, strongly favouring the mandatory, extensive and accessible US Open Payments over the self-regulatory Australian model. Participants also noted that transparency had limitations, including the utility of disclosed information. In relation to industry sponsorship of advocacy groups, some participants expressed an openness to and support for accepting sponsorship, while many expressed a caution around potential downsides. Questionnaire results showed increases in both confidence and knowledge after the workshop, though only 23 of 48 participants returned the 3-month follow-up questionnaire. CONCLUSIONS:Following a half-day workshop, citizen health advocates recruited by leading health advocacy organisations expressed strong support for tough transparency rules, and mixed feelings about advocacy groups accepting sponsorship from industry. Study limitations include a non-representative sample and a large drop-out at the 3-month post-workshop follow-up.

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:BackgroundThe reliability of clinical practice guidelines has been disputed because guideline panel members are often burdened with financial conflicts of interest (COI). Current recommendations for COI regulation advise not only detailed declaration but also active management of conflicts. To continuously assess COI declaration and management in German guidelines we established the public database LeitlinienWatch (GuidelineWatch).MethodsWe analyzed all German guidelines at the highest methodological level (S3) that included recommendations for pharmacological therapy (n = 67) according to five criteria: declaration and assessment of COI, composition of the guideline development group, independence of the coordinators and lead authors, imposed abstentions because of COI and public external review. Each criterion was assessed using predefined outcome categories.ResultsMost guidelines (76%) contained a detailed declaration of COI. However, none of the guidelines provided full transparency of COI assessment results. The guideline group was composed of a majority of participants with COI in 55% of the guidelines, no guideline was free of participants with COI. Only 9% of guidelines had coordinators and lead authors without any financial COI. Most guidelines (70%) did not provide a rule for abstentions for participants with COI. In 21% of guidelines there was a rule, but abstentions were either not practiced or not documented, whereas in 7% partial abstentions and in 2% complete abstentions were documented. Two thirds of the guideline drafts (67%) were not externally reviewed via a public website.ConclusionsCOI are usually documented in detail in German guidelines of the highest methodological level. However, considerable improvement is needed regarding active management of COI, including recruitment of independent experts for guideline projects, abstention from voting for participants with COI and external review of the guideline draft. We assume that the publicly available ratings on GuidelineWatch will improve the handling of conflicts of interest in guideline development.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are increasingly used to inform health policy-making. The conflicts of interest (COI) of the authors of systematic reviews may bias their results and influence their conclusions. This may in turn lead to misguided public policies and systems level decisions. In order to mitigate the adverse impact of COI, scientific journals require authors to disclose their COIs. The objective of this study was to assess the frequency and different types of COI that authors of systematic reviews on health policy and systems research (HSPR) report.MethodsWe conducted a cross sectional survey. We searched the Health Systems Evidence (HSE) database of McMaster Health Forum for systematic reviews published in 2015. We extracted information regarding the characteristics of the systematic reviews and the associated COI disclosures. We conducted descriptive analyses.ResultsEighty percent of systematic reviews included authors' COI disclosures. Of the 160 systematic reviews that included COI disclosures, 15% had at least one author reporting at least one type of COI. The two most frequently reported types of COI were individual financial COI and individual scholarly COI (11% and 4% respectively). Institutional COIs were less commonly reported than individual COIs (3% and 15% respectively) and non-financial COIs were less commonly reported than financial COIs (6% and 14% respectively). Only one systematic review reported the COI disclosure by editors, and none reported disclosure by peer reviewers. All COI disclosures were in the form of a narrative statement in the main document and none in an online document.ConclusionA fifth of systematic reviews in HPSR do not include a COI disclosure statement, highlighting the need for journals to strengthen and/or better implement their COI disclosure policies. While only 15% of identified disclosure statements report any COI, it is not clear whether this indicates a low frequency of COI versus an underreporting of COI, or both.

Project description:BackgroundThe requirements of the health policy and services journals for authors to report their financial and non-financial conflicts of interest (COI) are unclear. The present article aims to assess the requirements of health policy and services journals for authors to disclose their financial and non-financial COIs.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study of journals listed by the Web of Science under the category of 'Health Policy and Services'. We reviewed the 'Instructions for Authors' on the journals' websites and then simulated the submission of a manuscript to obtain any additional relevant information made available during that step. We abstracted data in duplicate and independently using a standardised form.ResultsOut of 72 eligible journals, 67 (93%) had a COI policy. A minority of policies described how the disclosed COIs of authors would impact the editorial process (34%). None of the policies had clear-cut criteria for rejection based on the content of the disclosure. Approximately a fifth of policies (21%) explicitly stated that inaccurate or incomplete disclosures might lead to manuscript rejection or retraction. No policy described whether the journal would verify the accuracy or completeness of authors' disclosed COIs. Most journals' policies (93%) required the disclosure of at least one form of financial COI. While the majority asked for specification of source of payment (71%), a minority asked for the amount (18%). Overall, 81% of policies explicitly required disclosure of non-financial COIs.ConclusionA majority of health policy and services journal policies required the disclosure of authors' financial and non-financial COIs, but few required details on disclosed COIs. Health policy journals should provide specific definitions and instructions for disclosing non-financial COIs. A framework providing clear typology and operational definitions of the different types of COIs will facilitate both their disclosure by authors and reviewers and their assessment and management by the editorial team and the readers.

Dataset Information

Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Publications

Disclosure of Financial Conflicts of Interests in Interventions to Improve Child Psychosocial Health: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets