Dataset Information

'Lines in the sand': an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To study how patient groups that accept pharmaceutical industry money perceive and manage the risk of undue influence from their sponsors.

Design

Empirical ethics approach using a qualitative interview study.

Setting

The Australian patient group sector.

Participants

27 participants from 23 patient groups, purposively recruited for diversity of group characteristics (degree of pharmaceutical industry funding, health focus, location) and participant role (staff, board members).

Analysis

Interview data were transcribed and read repeatedly to identify concepts and patterns in the data. These were grouped into conceptual categories that described and explained the findings. We used an inductive analytical approach to identify important themes and concepts in the data.

Results

Participants in this study described how the patient group sector receives pressure from pharmaceutical company funders to act in ways that prioritise company interests. Groups worked to try and protect their credibility and ability to act in ways of their own choosing using practical rules or 'lines in the sand' about industry funding activities. They were grouped around the dominant topics of: sponsor exclusivity, brand marketing, agenda setting, advocacy and content of group activities. Lines in the sand were largely experience-driven and ethically informed; they varied between groups. There was also variable transparency among groups about financial interactions with pharmaceutical companies.

Conclusions

It is important to know about patient group practices around pharmaceutical industry funders as this allows public scrutiny about the adequacy of such practices. Inadequate strategies may mean that funders can influence patient groups activities in ways that do not necessarily prioritise the interests of members. We found that groups differed in their approach, with little independent external guidance to inform responses to commonly encountered types of influence. Inadequate transparency limits the ability of the public to make informed assessments about the risk of bias over the activities of groups that accept industry funding.

SUBMITTER: Parker L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7875302 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

'Lines in the sand': an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders.

Parker Lisa L Grundy Quinn Q Fabbri Alice A Mintzes Barbara B Bero Lisa L

BMJ open 20210209 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To study how patient groups that accept pharmaceutical industry money perceive and manage the risk of undue influence from their sponsors.<h4>Design</h4>Empirical ethics approach using a qualitative interview study.<h4>Setting</h4>The Australian patient group sector.<h4>Participants</h4>27 participants from 23 patient groups, purposively recruited for diversity of group characteristics (degree of pharmaceutical industry funding, health focus, location) and participant role (st ...[more]

PMID: 33563626

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVE:To understand and report on the nature of patient group interactions with the pharmaceutical industry from the perspective of patient group representatives by exploring the range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and how, why, and when interactions occur. DESIGN:Empirical qualitative interview study informed by ethics theory. SETTING:Australian patient groups. PARTICIPANTS:27 participants from 23 Australian patient groups that represented diverse levels of financial engagement with the pharmaceutical industry. Groups were focused on general health consumer issues or disease specific topics, and had regional or national jurisdictions. ANALYSIS:Analytic techniques were informed by grounded theory. Interview transcripts were coded into data driven categories. Findings were organised into new conceptual categories to describe and explain the data, and were supported by quotes. RESULTS:A range of attitudes towards pharmaceutical industry sponsorship were identified that are presented as four different types of relationship between patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry. The dominant relationship type was of a successful business partnership, and participants described close working relationships with industry personnel. These participants acknowledged a potential for adverse industry influence, but expressed confidence in existing strategies for avoiding industry influence. Other participants described unsatisfactory or undeveloped relationships, and some participants (all from general health consumer groups) presented their groups' missions as incompatible with the pharmaceutical industry because of fundamentally opposing interests. Participants reported that interactions between their patient group and pharmaceutical companies were more common when companies had new drugs of potential interest to group members. Patient groups that accepted industry funding engaged in exchanges of "assets" with companies. Groups received money, information, and advice in exchange for providing companies with marketing, relationship building opportunities with key opinion leaders, coordinated lobbying with companies about drug access and subsidy, assisting companies with clinical trial recruitment, and enhancing company credibility. CONCLUSIONS:An understanding of the range of views patient groups have about pharmaceutical company sponsorship will be useful for groups that seek to identify and manage any ethical concerns about these relationships. Patient groups that receive pharmaceutical industry money should anticipate they might be asked for specific assets in return. Selective industry funding of groups where active product marketing opportunities exist might skew the patient group sector's activity towards pharmaceutical industry interests and allow industry to exert proxy influence over advocacy and subsequent health policy.

Project description:BackgroundA significant gap persists between evidence from research and its use in practice. Research funders, important actors in the health research system, can help reduce this gap by initiating dissemination and implementation (D&I) activities. The specific types of D&I activities funders currently lead have not been explored thoroughly. The Ensuring Value in Research (EViR) Funders' Forum-an international collaboration of health-related research funders-was established in 2017 to address research waste issues and increase the value of research. The Forum surveyed funders to learn about their D&I practices and challenges.MethodsWe distributed a five-item exploratory survey to participating funders in August 2018. The results informed the development of a survey instrument, distributed in June 2019. The survey instrument contained 15 items prompting respondents to categorize and describe their level of effort in six practice areas: release of findings, dissemination, knowledge exchange/partnering, implementation, building capacity, and implementation research. In addition, funders were asked to describe examples of their practices in detail. Thirty-one funders completed the survey instrument, a 58% response rate.ResultsMost funders regard D&I as a high priority, but funders vary in levels of activity per practice area. Over half of respondents reported that they have at least some activity in all D&I practice areas surveyed, with the exception of implementation research. The vast majority indicated some or significant activity in release of findings (97%) and dissemination (87%). Nearly one-fifth of funders (19%) indicated that implementation is outside their remit, and 26% indicated that implementation research is outside their remit. Survey respondents shared a broad range of examples of activities in each practice area. Lack of evidence for successful approaches and measuring impact were named frequently as challenges and as potential areas for collaboration.ConclusionsAlthough models of dissemination and implementation vary across organizations, the majority of funders indicated that D&I of research findings is a priority. Funders indicated a need for evidence on effectiveness of various approaches to D&I. Increased collaboration between funders, including sharing good practices, will increase our collective learning and knowledge development.

Project description:BackgroundData sharing is commonly seen as beneficial for science but is not yet common practice. Research funding agencies are known to play a key role in promoting data sharing, but German funders' data sharing policies appear to lag behind in international comparison. This study aims to answer the question of how German data sharing experts inside and outside funding agencies perceive and evaluate German funders' data sharing policies and overall efforts to promote data sharing.MethodsThis study is based on sixteen guided expert interviews with representatives of German funders and German research data experts from stakeholder organisations, who shared their perceptions of German' funders efforts to promote data sharing. By applying the method of qualitative content analysis to our interview data, we categorise and describe noteworthy aspects of the German data sharing policy landscape and illustrate our findings with interview passages.ResultsWe present our findings in five sections to distinguish our interviewees' perceptions on a) the status quo of German funders' data sharing policies, b) the role of funders in promoting data sharing, c) current and potential measures by funders to promote data sharing, d) general barriers to those measures, and e) the implementation of more binding data sharing requirements.Discussion and conclusionAlthough funders are perceived to be important promoters and facilitators of data sharing throughout our interviews, only few German funding agencies have data sharing policies in place. Several interviewees stated that funders could do more, for example by providing incentives for data sharing or by introducing more concrete policies. Our interviews suggest the academic freedom of grantees is widely perceived as an obstacle for German funders in introducing mandatory data sharing requirements. However, some interviewees stated that stricter data sharing requirements could be justified if data sharing is a part of good scientific practice.

Project description:ObjectivesResearch on the adaptation of population health interventions for implementation in new contexts is rapidly expanding. This has been accompanied by a recent increase in the number of frameworks and guidance to support adaptation processes. Nevertheless, there remains limited exploration of the real-world experiences of undertaking intervention adaptation, notably the challenges encountered by different groups of stakeholders, and how these are managed. Understanding experiences is imperative in ensuring that guidance to support adaptation has practical utility. This qualitative study examines researcher and stakeholder experiences of funding, conducting and reporting adaptation research.SettingAdaptation studies.ParticipantsParticipants/cases were purposefully sampled to represent a range of adapted interventions, types of evaluations, expertise and countries. Semistructured interviews were conducted with a sample of researchers (n=23), representatives from research funding panels (n=6), journal editors (n=5) and practitioners (n=3).MeasuresA case study research design was used. Data were analysed using the framework approach. Overarching themes were discussed within the study team, with further iterative refinement of subthemes.ResultsThe results generated four central themes. The first three relate to the experience of intervention adaptation (1) involving stakeholders throughout the adaptation process and how to integrate the evidence base with experience; (2) selecting the intervention and negotiating the mismatch between the original and the new context; and (3) the complexity and uncertainty when deciding the re-evaluation process. The final theme (4) reflects on participants' experiences of using adaptation frameworks in practice, considering recommendations for future guidance development and refinement.ConclusionThis study highlights the range of complexities and challenges experienced in funding, conducting and reporting research on intervention adaptation. Moving forward, guidance can be helpful in systematising processes, provided that it remains responsive to local contexts and encourage innovative practice.

Dataset Information

'Lines in the sand': an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Analysis

Results

Conclusions

Publications

'Lines in the sand': an Australian qualitative study of patient group practices to promote independence from pharmaceutical industry funders.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets