A new survey to evaluate conflict of interest policies at academic medical centers

PLoS One. 2017 Mar 15;12(3):e0172472. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172472. eCollection 2017.

Abstract

Background: A majority of academic medical centers (AMCs) have now adopted conflict of interest policies (COI) to address relationships with pharmaceutical and device industries that can increase the risk of bias in patient care, education and research. However, AMCs may have little information on the impact of their policies. This paper provides a new method, which is a free, publicly-available survey, to fill this information gap and improve COI programs at AMCs.

Methods & findings: The survey, piloted in three AMCs and designed in collaboration with national conflicts of interest policy experts, covers a range of universal compliance-related concerns, which allows institutions to tailor questions to align with their own policies and culture. The survey was low-burden, and provided important data for these AMCs to evaluate their policies. A descriptive analysis of the pooled pilot site data (n = 1578) was performed, which found that a majority of respondents did not have financial ties with industry and a majority was satisfied with specific COI policies at their institutions. The analysis also showed that the survey is sensitive to differences that AMCs will find meaningful. For instance, individuals with industry ties were significantly more likely than individuals without ties to think that COI policies unnecessarily hindered interactions with industry (p = .004), were ineffective at reducing harm to patients (p < .001), and were ineffective in reducing bias in medical education (p>.001).

Conclusion: The survey is now free and publicly available for use by any institution. AMCs can use the results to update and refine policies, and to provide ongoing education regarding existing policies.

MeSH terms

  • Academic Medical Centers*
  • Conflict of Interest*
  • Humans
  • Pilot Projects
  • Qualitative Research
  • Surveys and Questionnaires

Grants and funding

This work was supported by the Oregon Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program, no URL available. The support was for salaries and expenses of MH and WW; consulting by SR; expenses for Working Group chair LZ and SR: Pew Charitable Trusts: fiscal agent for grant from Oregon Attorney General Consumer and Prescriber Grant Program; Edmund J. Safra Foundation for Ethics, Harvard University: salary and expenses for MH; consulting by SR and MK.