corner
Healthy Skepticism
Countering misleading health information
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 1923

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Thorat MA .
Grading the competing interests
BMJ 2002 Dec 20; 325:(7377):1375
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7377/1375


Abstract:

Declaring competing interests must be mandatory in biomedical journals, but the impact should be proportionate. Interests can be ‘Project related’ or ‘Other’. Project related interests can be graded: I – Direct professional funding for projects. II – Charitable funding with professional participation like free drug supply. III – Fully charitable (or government agency) funding from organisations whose members are connected (by means of consultancy or stock ownership) with professional organisations. IV – No competing interests. Other competing interests are not directly related to particular projects. Declaration of these will always be controversial. They can be divided into Research, Academic and Personal interests. Authors should disclose percentage of research funding (for other projects) from related professional sources, and percentage of funding for academic activities (like attending meetings or conferences) with related professional sources. Consultation payments or stock ownership can be disclosed as percentage of personal assets or expenditure. This is rather complex, but obviates the need for declaring actual sums, something which most authors will be uncomfortable with. It will also help readers to objectively judge outcomes. However, competing interests arising out of personal relationships, academic competition and intellectual passion will probably remain gray zones. Grading financial competing interests will be a step towards bringing objectivity without added discomfort.

Keywords:
letter to the editor United Kingdom India relationship between medical profession and industry conflict-of-interest declaration of interests stocks & shares ETHICAL ISSUES IN PROMOTION: LINKS BETWEEN HEALTH PROFESSIONALS AND INDUSTRY SPONSORSHIP: HEALTH PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS SPONSORSHIP: RESEARCH

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








“to influence multinational corporations effectively, the efforts of governments will have to be complemented by others, notably the many voluntary organisations that have shown they can effectively represent society’s public-health interests…
A small group known as Healthy Skepticism; formerly the Medical Lobby for Appropriate Marketing) has consistently and insistently drawn the attention of producers to promotional malpractice, calling for (and often securing) correction. These organisations [Healthy Skepticism, Médecins Sans Frontières and Health Action International] are small, but they are capable; they bear malice towards no one, and they are inscrutably honest. If industry is indeed persuaded to face up to its social responsibilities in the coming years it may well be because of these associations and others like them.”
- Dukes MN. Accountability of the pharmaceutical industry. Lancet. 2002 Nov 23; 360(9346)1682-4.