Dataset Information

Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. DESIGN:Systematic review with meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES:Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTING STUDIES:Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after studies of patient groups reporting at least one of the following outcomes: prevalence of industry funding; proportion of industry funded patient groups that disclosed information about this funding; and association between industry funding and organisational positions on health and policy issues. Studies were included irrespective of language or publication type. REVIEW METHODS:Reviewers carried out duplicate independent data extraction and assessment of study quality. An amended version of the checklist for prevalence studies developed by the Joanna Briggs Institute was used to assess study quality. A DerSimonian-Laird estimate of single proportions with Freeman-Tukey arcsine transformation was used for meta-analyses of prevalence. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) was used to assess the quality of the evidence for each outcome. RESULTS:26 cross sectional studies met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 15 studies estimated the prevalence of industry funding, which ranged from 20% (12/61) to 83% (86/104). Among patient organisations that received industry funding, 27% (175/642; 95% confidence interval 24% to 31%) disclosed this information on their websites. In submissions to consultations, two studies showed very different disclosure rates (0% and 91%), which appeared to reflect differences in the relevant government agency's disclosure requirements. Prevalence estimates of organisational policies that govern corporate sponsorship ranged from 2% (2/125) to 64% (175/274). Four studies analysed the relationship between industry funding and organisational positions on a range of highly controversial issues. Industry funded groups generally supported sponsors' interests. CONCLUSION:In general, industry funding of patient groups seems to be common, with prevalence estimates ranging from 20% to 83%. Few patient groups have policies that govern corporate sponsorship. Transparency about corporate funding is also inadequate. Among the few studies that examined associations between industry funding and organisational positions, industry funded groups tended to have positions favourable to the sponsor. Patient groups have an important role in advocacy, education, and research, therefore strategies are needed to prevent biases that could favour the interests of sponsors above those of the public. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42017079265.

SUBMITTER: Fabbri A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7190040 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Fabbri Alice A Parker Lisa L Colombo Cinzia C Mosconi Paola P Barbara Giussy G Frattaruolo Maria Pina MP Lau Edith E Kroeger Cynthia M CM Lunny Carole C Salzwedel Douglas M DM Mintzes Barbara B

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20200122

<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups.<h4>Design</h4>Systematic review with meta-analysis.<h4>Data sources</h4>Ovid Medline, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar from inception to January 2018; reference lists of eligible studies and experts in the field.<h4>Eligibility criteria for selecting studies</h4>Observational studies including cross sectional, cohort, case-control, interrupted time series, and before-after stud ...[more]

PMID: 31969320

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMany patient organisations collaborate with drug companies, resulting in concerns about commercial agendas influencing patient advocacy. We contribute to an international body of knowledge on patient organisation-industry relations by considering payments reported in the industry's centralised 'collaboration database' in Sweden. We also investigate possible commercial motives behind the funding by assessing its association with drug commercialisation.MethodsOur primary data source were 1,337 payment reports from 2014-2018. After extraction and coding, we analysed the data descriptively, calculating the number, value and distribution of payments for various units of analysis, e.g. individual companies, diseases and payment goals. The association between drug commercialisation and patient organisation funding was assessed by, first, the concordance between leading companies marketing drugs in specific diseases and their funding of corresponding patient organisations and, second, the correlation between new drugs in broader condition areas and payments to corresponding patient organisations.Results46 companies reported paying €6,449.224 (median €2,411; IQR €1,024-4,569) to 77 patient organisations, but ten companies provided 67% of the funding. Small payments dominated, many of which covered costs of events organised by patient organisations. An association existed between drug commercialisation and industry funding. Companies supported patient organisations in diseases linked to their drug portfolios, with the top 3 condition areas in terms of funding-cancer; endocrine, nutritional and metabolic disorders; and infectious and parasitic disorders-accounting for 63% of new drugs and 56% of the funding.ConclusionThis study reveals close and widespread ties between patient organisations and drug companies. A relatively few number of companies dominated the funding landscape by supporting patient organisations in disease areas linked to their drug portfolios. This commercially motivated funding may contribute to inequalities in resource and influence between patient organisations. The association between drug commercialisation and industry funding is also worrying because of the therapeutic uncertainty of many new drugs. Our analysis benefited from the existence of a centralised database of payments-which should be adopted by other countries too-but databases should be downloadable in an analysable format to permit efficient and independent analysis.

Project description:BackgroundConsidering the normalisation of moderate aggression within organisations and the concern of violent occurrences being under-reported in India, violence reflected through coercive language appears to be more frequent than explicit acts of organisational violence.AimTo bring-forth consolidated evidence on the prevalence of violent communication within Indian organisations.Method1433 articles obtained from four major databases (PubMed, Scopus, Science Direct, Web of Science and Google scholar), complemented by 4 records identified through manual searching, were screened according to the PRISMA guidelines. Thirty-four finalised cross-sectional studies (published since 2000) reporting significant findings on the prevalence of violent communication within Indian organisations, underwent a systematic review (by narrative synthesis) and meta-analysis (using the random-effects model in STATA version 17).ResultsThe pooled prevalence of any type of violent communication was 41%. The prevalence of violent communication was higher among males than females (44% vs 28%). Verbal violence was more prevalent than non-verbal violence (36% vs 20%). Subgroup analysis proved prevalence estimate to remain consistent irrespective of the organisational sector, type of organisation, sample size and publication year. However, meta-regression analysis confirmed the sampling method and type of violent communication as potential variables influencing the prevalence rates reported across the studies. All the identified factors influencing the occurrence of violent communication and the corresponding detrimental consequences faced by victims within each organisational sector, endeavour scope for the development of more context-specific prevention strategies.ConclusionAs evident from the results, the prevalence of any type of violent communication within Indian organisations is quite high. The present review informs Indian entrepreneurs about the necessity for advocating practices to protect their human resources from the experience of violent communication. Practical implications have been presented for healthcare and educational organisations.

Project description:Plain english summaryCochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews of clinical trial evidence. We looked for published evidence that reports where consumers (patients and the public) have been involved in Cochrane systematic reviews, and also in reviews published by other organisations.We found 36 studies that reported about consumer involvement either in individual systematic reviews, or in other organisations. The studies showed that consumers were involved in reviews in a range of different ways: coordinating and producing reviews, making reviews more accessible, and spreading the results of reviews ("knowledge transfer"). The most common role was commenting on reviews ("peer reviewing"). Consumers also had other general roles, for example in educating people about evidence or helping other consumers. There were some interesting examples of new ways of involving consumers. The studies showed that most consumers came from rich and English speaking countries. There was little evidence about how consumer involvement had changed the reviews ("impact"). The studies found that consumer involvement needed to be properly supported.In future we believe that more research should be done to understand what kind of consumer involvement has the best impact; that more review authors should report how consumers have been involved; and that consumers who help with reviews should come from more varied backgrounds.AbstractBackground Cochrane is the largest international producer of systematic reviews, and is committed to consumer involvement in the production and dissemination of its reviews. The review aims to systematically scope the evidence base for consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews; with an emphasis on Cochrane. Methods In June 2015 we searched six databases and other sources for studies of consumer involvement in organisations which commission, undertake or support systematic reviews, or in individual systematic review processes. All types of reports and evaluations were eligible. Included studies were combined in a narrative synthesis structured by the level of evaluation and the type of involvement. Results We identified 36 relevant studies. Eleven of these were evaluations at the level of a whole organisation; seven of these studied consumer involvement in Cochrane. Ten studies examined individual Cochrane review groups. Twelve studies reported on individual reviews; only two of these were Cochrane reviews. Finally, three studies were themselves syntheses of other studies. The included studies reported varying levels of consumer involvement across a wide range of activities related to review design and conduct. These included activities such as priority setting and outcome definition as well as review-specific roles such as acting as peer referees and producing plain language summaries. The level of satisfaction and awareness of impact was generally higher in studies focused on individual Cochrane review groups than in the organisation-wide studies. Conclusions There was evidence of highly variable levels and types of consumer involvement within and beyond Cochrane, but limited evidence for what makes the most effective methods and levels of involving consumers in review production. Where evidence of impact was found at the level of individual reviews and review groups it underlined the need for properly resourced and supported processes in order to derive the greatest benefit from the lived experiences of consumers who are willing to be involved. Where reviews do involve consumers, their contribution to the final result could be more clearly identified. More rigorous evaluations are needed to determine the best approach to achieving this. Trial registration Not applicable.

Dataset Information

Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Publications

Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets