A Content Analysis of Patient Advocacy Organization Policies Addressing Institutional Conflicts of Interest.

Clicks: 395
ID: 62953
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 #3 of 5 articles by views in ajob empirical bioethics

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
Abstract
Patient advocacy organizations (PAOs) provide patient education, raise public awareness, and influence health policy for a wide range of diseases. These organizations frequently receive financial support form from drug, device, and biotechnology companies. Though PAOs often develop policies to address institutional conflicts of interest arising from industry relations, little is known about the substance of these policies. We sampled all PAOs that are members of the National Health Council. Using a standardized search strategy, all policies were obtained from each organization if publicly available. We reviewed policies for content related to restrictions on corporate partnerships, disclosure of corporate funding, and governance and monitoring of corporate partnerships. We found that 24 of 47 (51%) organizations had policies that addressed institutional conflict of interest. A total of 9 of those 24 (38%) policies placed any restriction on the types of corporations that the PAO would or would not partner with. While 16 of the 24 (67%) outlined some process for disclosure of the organization's corporate donors, only 5 of 24 (21%) specified a manner for disclosing the financial value of those donations. Further, 15 of the 24 (63%) policies identified the person or persons responsible for approving corporate partnerships. However, 17 (71%) failed to address or specify the person(s) responsible for ongoing review of those partnerships. Nearly half of the organizations studied did not have publicly available conflict of interest policies. Among those that did, few policies had a substantial level of detail or limitations to guard against conflicts of interest.
Reference Key
bremsaajob Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Brems, John H;McCoy, Matthew S;
Journal ajob empirical bioethics
Year Year not found
DOI
10.1080/23294515.2019.1670278
URL
Keywords

Citations

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

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