Dataset Information

Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Moynihan R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7223283 | biostudies-literature | 2020 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.

Moynihan Ray R Fabbri Alice A Parker Lisa L Bero Lisa L

BMJ open 20200510 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>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.<h4>Design</h4>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 datab ...[more]

PMID: 32393611

Similar Datasets

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:IntroductionFailure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018.MethodAnnual workshops were conducted 2011-2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann-Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall.ResultsParticipants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: 'specify PRO concepts/domains' (p = 0.05); 'methods for handling missing data' (p = 0.044).ConclusionAlthough participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Web-based physician reviews are invaluable gold mines that merit further investigation. Although many studies have explored the text information of physician reviews, very few have focused on developing a systematic topic taxonomy embedded in physician reviews. The first step toward mining physician reviews is to determine how the natural structure or dimensions is embedded in reviews. Therefore, it is relevant to develop the topic taxonomy rigorously and systematically. OBJECTIVE:This study aims to develop a hierarchical topic taxonomy to uncover the latent structure of physician reviews and illustrate its application for mining patients' interests based on the proposed taxonomy and algorithm. METHODS:Data comprised 122,716 physician reviews, including reviews of 8501 doctors from a leading physician review website in China (haodf.com), collected between 2007 and 2015. Mixed methods, including a literature review, data-driven-based topic discovery, and human annotation were used to develop the physician review topic taxonomy. RESULTS:The identified taxonomy included 3 domains or high-level categories and 9 subtopics or low-level categories. The physician-related domain included the categories of medical ethics, medical competence, communication skills, medical advice, and prescriptions. The patient-related domain included the categories of the patient profile, symptoms, diagnosis, and pathogenesis. The system-related domain included the categories of financing and operation process. The F-measure of the proposed classification algorithm reached 0.816 on average. Symptoms (Cohen d=1.58, Δu=0.216, t=229.75, and P<.001) are more often mentioned by patients with acute diseases, whereas communication skills (Cohen d=-0.29, Δu=-0.038, t=-42.01, and P<.001), financing (Cohen d=-0.68, Δu=-0.098, t=-99.26, and P<.001), and diagnosis and pathogenesis (Cohen d=-0.55, Δu=-0.078, t=-80.09, and P<.001) are more often mentioned by patients with chronic diseases. Patients with mild diseases were more interested in medical ethics (Cohen d=0.25, Δu 0.039, t=8.33, and P<.001), operation process (Cohen d=0.57, Δu 0.060, t=18.75, and P<.001), patient profile (Cohen d=1.19, Δu 0.132, t=39.33, and P<.001), and symptoms (Cohen d=1.91, Δu=0.274, t=62.82, and P<.001). Meanwhile, patients with serious diseases were more interested in medical competence (Cohen d=-0.99, Δu=-0.165, t=-32.58, and P<.001), medical advice and prescription (Cohen d=-0.65, Δu=-0.082, t=-21.45, and P<.001), financing (Cohen d=-0.26, Δu=-0.018, t=-8.45, and P<.001), and diagnosis and pathogenesis (Cohen d=-1.55, Δu=-0.229, t=-50.93, and P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:This mixed-methods approach, integrating literature reviews, data-driven topic discovery, and human annotation, is an effective and rigorous way to develop a physician review topic taxonomy. The proposed algorithm based on Labeled-Latent Dirichlet Allocation can achieve impressive classification results for mining patients' interests. Furthermore, the mining results reveal marked differences in patients' interests across different disease types, socioeconomic development levels, and hospital levels.

Dataset Information

Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.

Publications

Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets