Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by oncology journals on Twitter.
Financial conflict of interest
Health policy
Industry
Oncology
Social media
Twitter
Journal
Journal of cancer research and clinical oncology
ISSN: 1432-1335
Titre abrégé: J Cancer Res Clin Oncol
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 7902060
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2023
Nov 2023
Historique:
received:
22
06
2023
accepted:
29
07
2023
pubmed:
8
8
2023
medline:
8
8
2023
entrez:
8
8
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Physicians have increasingly adopted Twitter as a discussion and distribution platform for oncology research. While the influence of financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) on medical research is well documented, their role in the dissemination of research on social media platforms is not well known. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOIs of physicians followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter. We used the Open Payments Search Tool ( https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov ) to assess FCOIs between 2016 and 2021 of United States (US) physicians followed by three oncology journals (Journal of Clinical Oncology, The Lancet Oncology, and Annals of Oncology) on Twitter. Of 1914 Twitter accounts followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter, 547 (28.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of these, 463 (84.6%) received general payments between 2016 and 2021. After excluding 30 US physicians currently in residency or fellowship, this percentage increased to 88.2% (n = 456/517). Combined, the median (interquartile range) general payment amount was $8100 ($200-90,000). Additionally, over $42 million in general payments were made between 2016 and 2021. Our findings offer insight on FCOIs between oncology journals and US physicians on Twitter. These findings may serve as the foundation for future research regarding optimal medical journal conduct on social media platforms.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Physicians have increasingly adopted Twitter as a discussion and distribution platform for oncology research. While the influence of financial conflicts of interests (FCOI) on medical research is well documented, their role in the dissemination of research on social media platforms is not well known. In this study, we sought to evaluate the FCOIs of physicians followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
METHODS
We used the Open Payments Search Tool ( https://openpaymentsdata.cms.gov ) to assess FCOIs between 2016 and 2021 of United States (US) physicians followed by three oncology journals (Journal of Clinical Oncology, The Lancet Oncology, and Annals of Oncology) on Twitter.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Of 1914 Twitter accounts followed by the top three oncology journals on Twitter, 547 (28.6%) belonged to US physicians. Of these, 463 (84.6%) received general payments between 2016 and 2021. After excluding 30 US physicians currently in residency or fellowship, this percentage increased to 88.2% (n = 456/517). Combined, the median (interquartile range) general payment amount was $8100 ($200-90,000). Additionally, over $42 million in general payments were made between 2016 and 2021.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Our findings offer insight on FCOIs between oncology journals and US physicians on Twitter. These findings may serve as the foundation for future research regarding optimal medical journal conduct on social media platforms.
Identifiants
pubmed: 37552310
doi: 10.1007/s00432-023-05230-y
pii: 10.1007/s00432-023-05230-y
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
14137-14144Informations de copyright
© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.
Références
Agrawal S, Brown D (2016) The physician payments sunshine act-two years of the open payments program. N Engl J Med 374(10):906–909. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMp1509103
doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1509103
pubmed: 26962725
Akman EG, Powell K, Haslam A, Prasad V (2022) Characteristics of oncology podcasts: attitudes, speakers, conflicts. J Cancer Policy 32:100329. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100329
doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100329
pubmed: 35560266
Asikainen A, Iñiguez G, Ureña-Carrión J, Kaski K, Kivelä M (2020) Cumulative effects of triadic closure and homophily in social networks. Sci Adv. 6(19):eaax7310. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aax7310
doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aax7310
pubmed: 32426484
pmcid: 7209984
Bombardier C, Laine L, Reicin A et al (2000) Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. N Engl J Med 343(21):1520–1528. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm200011233432103
doi: 10.1056/nejm200011233432103
pubmed: 11087881
Coyle SL (2002) Physician-industry relations. Part 1: individual physicians. Ann Intern Med 136(5):396–402. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-136-5-200203050-00014
doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-136-5-200203050-00014
pubmed: 11874314
Fisher MA (2007) Medicine and industry: a necessary but conflicted relationship. Perspect Biol Med Winter 50(1):1–6. https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2007.0003
doi: 10.1353/pbm.2007.0003
Grande D, Shea JA, Armstrong K (2012) Pharmaceutical industry gifts to physicians: patient beliefs and trust in physicians and the health care system. J Gen Intern Med 27(3):274–279. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-011-1760-3
doi: 10.1007/s11606-011-1760-3
pubmed: 21671130
Hampson LA, Joffe S, Fowler R, Verter J, Emanuel EJ (2007) Frequency, type, and monetary value of financial conflicts of interest in cancer clinical research. J Clin Oncol 25(24):3609–3614. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2006.09.3633
doi: 10.1200/jco.2006.09.3633
pubmed: 17704409
Kaestner V, Brown A, Tao D, Prasad V (2017) Conflicts of interest in Twitter. Lancet Haematol 4(9):e408–e409. https://doi.org/10.1016/s2352-3026(17)30109-6
doi: 10.1016/s2352-3026(17)30109-6
pubmed: 28863800
Mitchell AP, Winn AN, Dusetzina SB (2018) Pharmaceutical industry payments and oncologists’ selection of targeted cancer therapies in medicare beneficiaries. JAMA Intern Med 178(6):854–856. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.0776
pubmed: 29630687
pmcid: 6145757
Pershad Y, Hangge PT, Albadawi H, Oklu R (2018) Social medicine: Twitter in healthcare. J Clin Med. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm7060121
doi: 10.3390/jcm7060121
pubmed: 30585195
pmcid: 6352021
Powell K, Kakkilaya A, Haslam A, Prasad V (2022) Financial conflicts of interest of OncoAlert: An informal oncology professional network. J Cancer Policy 34:100369. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100369
doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100369
pubmed: 36396090
Powell K, McCall K, Hooda K, Prasad V, Kakkilaya A (2023) Financial conflicts of interest of physicians followed by neurosurgical journals on Twitter. Int J Health Plann Manag. https://doi.org/10.1002/hpm.3611
doi: 10.1002/hpm.3611
Prasad V, Rajkumar SV (2016) Conflict of interest in academic oncology: moving beyond the blame game and forging a path forward. Blood Cancer J 6(11):e489. https://doi.org/10.1038/bcj.2016.101
doi: 10.1038/bcj.2016.101
pubmed: 27813537
pmcid: 5148049
Tao DL, Boothby A, McLouth J, Prasad V (2017) Financial conflicts of interest among hematologist-oncologists on Twitter. JAMA Intern Med 177(3):425–427. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8467
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2016.8467
pubmed: 28114456
Tibau A, Bedard PL, Srikanthan A et al (2015) Author financial conflicts of interest, industry funding, and clinical practice guidelines for anticancer drugs. J Clin Oncol 33(1):100–106. https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2014.57.8898
doi: 10.1200/jco.2014.57.8898
pubmed: 25385736
Torgerson T, Wayant C, Cosgrove L et al (2022) Ten years later: a review of the US 2009 institute of medicine report on conflicts of interest and solutions for further reform. BMJ Evid Based Med 27(1):46–54. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111503
doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2020-111503
pubmed: 33177167