Interactions between Australian cancer physicians and the pharmaceutical industry: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: To understand how and why Australian cancer physicians interact with the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured interviews, performed by a medical oncologist. Thematic analysis using a combination of deductive and inductive codes. SETTING: Given the evidence on industry influences on clinical practice and the importance to the market of oncology drugs, we sought to better understand cancer physicians' experiences. Practising consultant medical oncologists and clinical haematologists from four Australian states were interviewed over Zoom. PARTICIPANTS: 16 cancer physicians were interviewed between November 2021 and March 2022, from 37 invited (response rate 43%). Most were medical oncologists (n=12 of 16, 75%) and male (n=9 of 16, 56%). OUTCOME MEASURES: The analysis of all interviews was based on grounded theory. Transcripts were coded and then codes formed into themes with supporting quotes. The themes were then placed into categories, used to describe the broad areas into which the themes could be grouped. RESULTS: Six themes were identified that fell within two broad categories: cancer physicians' views and experiences of interactions and management of these interactions. Views and experiences included: the transactional nature of relationships, risks of research dependence, ethical challenges and varied attitudes based on interaction type. Management themes included: lack of useful guidance and reduced interactions during the COVID-19 pandemic. These led to an overarching seventh theme, on the desire for a 'middle road'. Cancer physicians identified the transactional nature of industry relationships and felt uncomfortable with several types of interactions, including those with sales representatives. Most wanted less contact with industry, and the forced separation that occurred with the COVID-19 pandemic was generally welcome. CONCLUSIONS: Cancer physicians may have difficulty balancing the perceived need to interact with industry in modern cancer care while maintaining distance to minimise conflicts of interest. Further research is needed to assess management strategies in this area.

Overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare in limited-resource settings: a workshop

Part I: An online workshop before or during PODC (90 min)This accessible on-line workshop would be open to people from all over the world, and the timing would be arranged to optimise maximum attendance from LMIC participants. It will have three segments.Overview of the problem of overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services in resource-limited settings (30 min)We will provide an overview of the problem of overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services in resource-limited settings with different examples from LMICs. We will also invite participants to reflect on their own real-life examples of the problem.Discussion on the ten most important research questions related to these problems (30 min)In small groups, participants will list the ten most important research questions related to the problem of overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services in resource-limited settings that need to be addressed. Then, in the whole group, we will ask participants to rank the list of research questions to achieve the ten most important research questionsFeedback on the proposal of a global survey of the extent of overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services in LMICs (30 min)We will present the proposal of a global survey of the extent of overdiagnosis and overuse of healthcare services in LMICs and invite feedback on the proposal. We will also invite collaborators for this research proposals.Part II: A face-to-face meeting during PODC (60 min)This meeting will be primarily face-to-face but will also potentially be open for remote participants to join.In this meeting, we will present a summary of part I and discuss the next steps to take the suggested recommendations forward, including activities to share and learn from each other’s experiences in addressing these problems.

Interventions to improve media coverage of medical research: a codesigned feasibility and acceptability study with Australian journalists.

OBJECTIVES: Although the media can influence public perceptions and utilisation of healthcare, journalists generally receive no routine training in interpreting and reporting on medical research. Given growing evidence about the problems of medical overuse, the need for quality media reporting has become a greater priority. This study aimed to codesign and assess the feasibility of a multicomponent training intervention for journalists in Australia. DESIGN: A small pragmatic feasibility study using a pre- and postdesign. SETTING: 90 min online workshop. PARTICIPANTS: Eight journalists currently working in Australia, recruited through the study's journalist advisor and existing contacts of the researchers. INTERVENTION: The training intervention covered a range of topics, including study designs, conflicts of interest, misleading medical statistics, population screening and overdiagnosis. The intervention also provided tools to help journalists with reporting, including a Tip Sheet and list of expert contacts in health and medicine. Preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires were administered via Qualtrics. MEASURES: Acceptability and feasibility of the intervention, and journalists' knowledge of overdiagnosis and common issues with health stories. Quantitative results were analysed descriptively using SPSS. Qualitative data were thematically analysed. RESULTS: All participants completed preworkshop and postworkshop questionnaires, and 6 completed the 6-week follow-up (75% retention). Feasibility findings suggest the intervention is acceptable and relevant to journalists, with participants indicating the workshop increased confidence with reporting on medical research. We observed increases in knowledge preworkshop to postworkshop for all knowledge measures on overdiagnosis and common issues with media coverage of medicine. Analysis of free-text responses identified several areas for improvement, such as including more examples to aid understanding of the counterintuitive topic of overdiagnosis and more time for discussion. CONCLUSIONS: Piloting suggested the multicomponent training intervention is acceptable to journalists and provided important feedback and insights to inform a future trial of the intervention's impact on media coverage of medicine.

Journalists' views on media coverage of medical tests and overdiagnosis: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists' views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests. DESIGN: Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years' experience) based in Australia. RESULTS: This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and 'click bait culture' in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting. CONCLUSIONS: Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.

Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on utilisation of healthcare services: a systematic review.

OBJECTIVES: To determine the extent and nature of changes in utilisation of healthcare services during COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN: Systematic review. ELIGIBILITY: Eligible studies compared utilisation of services during COVID-19 pandemic to at least one comparable period in prior years. Services included visits, admissions, diagnostics and therapeutics. Studies were excluded if from single centres or studied only patients with COVID-19. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register and preprints were searched, without language restrictions, until 10 August, using detailed searches with key concepts including COVID-19, health services and impact. DATA ANALYSIS: Risk of bias was assessed by adapting the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions tool, and a Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care tool. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics, graphical figures and narrative synthesis. OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary outcome was change in service utilisation between prepandemic and pandemic periods. Secondary outcome was the change in proportions of users of healthcare services with milder or more severe illness (eg, triage scores). RESULTS: 3097 unique references were identified, and 81 studies across 20 countries included, reporting on >11 million services prepandemic and 6.9 million during pandemic. For the primary outcome, there were 143 estimates of changes, with a median 37% reduction in services overall (IQR -51% to -20%), comprising median reductions for visits of 42% (-53% to -32%), admissions 28% (-40% to -17%), diagnostics 31% (-53% to -24%) and for therapeutics 30% (-57% to -19%). Among 35 studies reporting secondary outcomes, there were 60 estimates, with 27 (45%) reporting larger reductions in utilisation among people with a milder spectrum of illness, and 33 (55%) reporting no difference. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare utilisation decreased by about a third during the pandemic, with considerable variation, and with greater reductions among people with less severe illness. While addressing unmet need remains a priority, studies of health impacts of reductions may help health systems reduce unnecessary care in the postpandemic recovery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020203729.