An Assessment of the Industry-Faculty Surgeon Relationship Within Colon and Rectum Surgical Training Programs.

Clicks: 444
ID: 59454
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Star

Ranked #1 of 33 articles by views in Journal of surgical education

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Industry funding of surgical training programs poses a potential conflict of interest. With the recent implementation of the Sunshine Act, industry funding can be more accurately determined.To determine the financial relationship between faculty surgeons within colon and rectal fellowship programs and industry.Review of industry funding based on the first reporting period (August-December, 2013) using the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services online database.ACGME certified colon and rectum surgical fellowship programs.Overall, 343 Faculty surgeons from 55 colon and rectum surgical fellowship programs were identified using the American Board of Colon and Rectum Surgery website. There was complete identification of faculty surgeons in 47 (85.5%) programs, partially complete identification (i.e., >80%) in 6 (10.9%) programs, and inadequate identification of faculty in 2 (3.6%) programs.Industry funding as defined by the Sunshine Act included general payments (honorariums, consulting fees, food and beverage, and travel), research payments, and amount invested.In all, 69.1% of program directors and 59.4% of other faculty received at least one payment during the reporting period (Δ9.7%, 95% CI: -4.4% to 23.8%, p = 0.18). Program directors received higher amounts of funding than other faculty ($7072.90 vs. $2,819.29, Δ$4,253.61, 95% CI: $1132-$7375, p = 0.008). Overall, 49 of 53 (93%) programs had surgeons receive funding, with a median of 3.5 surgeons receiving funding per program. A total of 65 companies made payments to surgeons, with 80.1% of the funding categorized as general payments, 16.2% as investments, and 3.7% as research payments.Industry funding was common. This financial relationship poses a potential conflict of interest in training fellows for future practice.
Reference Key
patelanjournal Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Patel, Sunil V;Klingel, Michelle;Sonoda, Toyooki;
Journal Journal of surgical education
Year Year not found
DOI
10.1016/j.jsurg.2016.01.013
URL
Keywords
faculty industry funding medical knowledge patient care professionalism colorectal fellowship residency program

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.