Industry funding of patient and health consumer organisations: systematic review with meta-analysis.
Journal
BMJ (Clinical research ed.)
ISSN: 1756-1833
Titre abrégé: BMJ
Pays: England
ID NLM: 8900488
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 01 2020
22 01 2020
Historique:
entrez:
24
1
2020
pubmed:
24
1
2020
medline:
6
2
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
To investigate pharmaceutical or medical device industry funding of patient groups. Systematic review with meta-analysis. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. PROSPERO CRD42017079265.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31969320
doi: 10.1136/bmj.l6925
pmc: PMC7190040
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Systematic Review
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
l6925Commentaires et corrections
Type : CommentIn
Informations de copyright
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: All authors have completed the ICMJE uniform disclosure form at www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf and declare: no support from any organisation for the submitted work; PM and CC report an unconditional grant from the Smith Kline Foundation outside the submitted work; PM and CC are authors of some of the studies included in the review and were not involved in extracting data from or assessing the quality of their own studies; PM is a member of the Board of Europa Donna, the European Breast Cancer Coalition; BM is a member of the European network of Health Action International (HAI-Europe) and given this relationship she was not involved in extracting data from or assessing the quality of the two studies published by HAI-Europe2041; BM acted as an expert witness on behalf of plaintiffs in a Canadian class action suit on cardiovascular risks of testosterone; the remaining authors declare no other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work.
Références
Psychol Sci. 2014 Feb;25(2):575-84
pubmed: 24379156
PLoS One. 2012;7(5):e34974
pubmed: 22590498
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177(3):427-428
pubmed: 28114444
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Aug 1;176(8):1114-1122
pubmed: 27322350
BMJ. 2019 Jan 16;364:k5300
pubmed: 30651227
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033
pubmed: 28207928
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177(3):350-351
pubmed: 28114596
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008 Nov;66(5):626-8
pubmed: 19032171
Int J Health Serv. 2007;37(4):711-33
pubmed: 18072317
Gac Sanit. 2005 Mar-Apr;19(2):120-6
pubmed: 15860160
BMJ. 2003 Sep 6;327(7414):557-60
pubmed: 12958120
Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016 Jan 12;11:2
pubmed: 26754025
J Biomed Inform. 2009 Apr;42(2):377-81
pubmed: 18929686
Soc Sci Med. 2014 Dec;123:202-9
pubmed: 25085720
Control Clin Trials. 1986 Sep;7(3):177-88
pubmed: 3802833
JAMA Intern Med. 2017 Mar 1;177(3):344-350
pubmed: 28114624
N Engl J Med. 2017 Mar 2;376(9):880-885
pubmed: 28249131
BMJ. 2003 Aug 9;327(7410):344
pubmed: 12907506
BMJ. 2008 Apr 26;336(7650):924-6
pubmed: 18436948
Sociol Health Illn. 2013 Jun;35(5):761-77
pubmed: 23094890
Soc Sci Med. 2010 Apr;70(8):1171-5
pubmed: 20163903
Mayo Clin Proc. 2016 Nov;91(11):1668-1670
pubmed: 27814841
Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857-72
pubmed: 9595616
BMJ Open. 2016 Jun 01;6(6):e011124
pubmed: 27251686
Sociol Health Illn. 2008 Sep;30(6):929-43
pubmed: 18761512
BMJ. 2014 Oct 21;349:g6306
pubmed: 25336232
BMC Public Health. 2006 Aug 03;6:201
pubmed: 16887025
JAMA Intern Med. 2016 Mar;176(3):389-91
pubmed: 26831527
BMJ. 2003 May 31;326(7400):1208-10
pubmed: 12775627
Am J Public Health. 2011 Apr;101(4):602-9
pubmed: 21233424
BMJ. 2004 Jan 17;328(7432):148
pubmed: 14726344