Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 5 de 5
Filter
1.
Postgrad Med ; 127(7): 752-7, 2015.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26311116

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To review guidance from professional medical associations to physicians on the Sunshine Act, with a focus on industry support for medical publications. METHODS: Using 'Sunshine Act' as a search term, we searched PubMed (dates February 2013 to November 2014) and the 'grey literature' using Google and Google Scholar. Online information was extracted from websites of pre-identified professional medical associations. RESULTS: Some professional medical associations have published peer-reviewed recommendations, position statements or general advice on their websites and in journals around the Sunshine Act. Associations also provided broad online educational resources for physicians. There was universal agreement between peer-reviewed publications, including guidelines, for the need for full transparency and disclosure of industry support. Surveys by some professional associations showed variance in opinion on the forecasted impact of the Sunshine Act on physician-industry relationships. There was scarce information specifically related to reporting requirements for industry-supported medical publications. CONCLUSIONS: There is a shortage of information for physicians from professional associations regarding the Sunshine Act and support for medical publications. Due to the lack of clear guidance regarding support for publications, there are presently varying interpretations of the Sunshine Act. The literature debates the potential impact of the Sunshine Act and expresses some concerns that physician-enabled innovation in drug development may be hindered.


Subject(s)
Drug Industry , Financial Statements , Physicians , Publishing , Communication , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/methods , Drug Industry/statistics & numerical data , Financial Statements/methods , Financial Statements/standards , Humans , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act , Physicians/economics , Physicians/ethics , Publishing/ethics , Publishing/standards , Research Support as Topic , Societies, Medical/economics , Societies, Medical/ethics , United States
2.
Ann Intern Med ; 163(6): 461-4, 2015 Sep 15.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-26259067

ABSTRACT

This updated Good Publication Practice (GPP) guideline, known as GPP3, builds on earlier versions and provides recommendations for individuals and organizations that contribute to the publication of research results sponsored or supported by pharmaceutical, medical device, diagnostics, and biotechnology companies. The recommendations are designed to help individuals and organizations maintain ethical and transparent publication practices and comply with legal and regulatory requirements. These recommendations cover publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations (oral or poster) at scientific congresses. The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals invited more than 3000 professionals worldwide to apply for a position on the steering committee, or as a reviewer, for this guideline. The GPP2 authors reviewed all applications (n = 241) and assembled an 18-member steering committee that represented 7 countries and a diversity of publication professions and institutions. From the 174 selected reviewers, 94 sent comments on the second draft, which steering committee members incorporated after discussion and consensus. The resulting guideline includes new sections (Principles of Good Publication Practice for Company-Sponsored Medical Research, Data Sharing, Studies That Should Be Published, and Plagiarism), expands guidance on the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' authorship criteria and common authorship issues, improves clarity on appropriate author payment and reimbursement, and expands information on the role of medical writers. By following good publication practices (including GPP3), individuals and organizations will show integrity; accountability; and responsibility for accurate, complete, and transparent reporting in their publications and presentations.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/ethics , Biomedical Research/standards , Ethics, Business , Publishing/ethics , Publishing/standards , Research Support as Topic/ethics , Authorship/standards , Disclosure , Editorial Policies , Humans
3.
Trials ; 15: 141, 2014 Apr 24.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24758530

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Loneliness in older people is associated with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL). We undertook a parallel-group randomised controlled trial to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of telephone befriending for the maintenance of HRQoL in older people. An internal pilot tested the feasibility of the trial and intervention. METHODS: Participants aged >74 years, with good cognitive function, living independently in one UK city were recruited through general practices and other sources, then randomised to: (1) 6 weeks of short one-to-one telephone calls, followed by 12 weeks of group telephone calls with up to six participants, led by a trained volunteer facilitator; or (2) a control group. The main trial required the recruitment of 248 participants in a 1-year accrual window, of whom 124 were to receive telephone befriending. The pilot specified three success criteria which had to be met in order to progress the main trial to completion: recruitment of 68 participants in 95 days; retention of 80% participants at 6 months; successful delivery of telephone befriending by local franchise of national charity. The primary clinical outcome was the Short Form (36) Health Instrument (SF-36) Mental Health (MH) dimension score collected by telephone 6 months following randomisation. RESULTS: We informed 9,579 older people about the study. Seventy consenting participants were randomised to the pilot in 95 days, with 56 (80%) providing valid primary outcome data (26 intervention, 30 control). Twenty-four participants randomly allocated to the research arm actually received telephone befriending due to poor recruitment and retention of volunteer facilitators. The trial was closed early as a result. The mean 6-month SF-36 MH scores were 78 (SD 18) and 71 (SD 21) for the intervention and control groups, respectively (mean difference, 7; 95% CI, -3 to 16). CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment and retention of participants to a definitive trial with a recruitment window of 1 year is feasible. For the voluntary sector to recruit sufficient volunteers to match demand for telephone befriending created by trial recruitment would require the study to be run in more than one major population centre, and/or involve dedicated management of volunteers. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN28645428.


Subject(s)
Aging/psychology , Friends , Group Processes , Loneliness , Quality of Life , Telephone , Age Factors , Aged , Aged, 80 and over , England , Feasibility Studies , Female , Geriatric Assessment , Humans , Independent Living , Male , Mental Health , Patient Selection , Pilot Projects , Time Factors
4.
BMJ Open ; 4(4): e004780, 2014 Apr 19.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24747794

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To gather information about current practices and implementation of publication guidelines among publication professionals working in or for the pharmaceutical industry. DESIGN/SETTING: Web-based survey publicised via email and social media to members of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) and other organisations from November 2012 to February 2013. PARTICIPANTS: 469 individuals involved in publishing industry-sponsored research in peer-reviewed journals, mainly working in pharmaceutical or device companies ('industry', n=144), communication agencies ('agency', n=238), contract research organisations (CRO, n=15) or as freelancers (n=34). Most respondents (78%) had worked on medical publications for ≥5 years and 62% had a PhD/MD. RESULTS: Over 90% of industry, agency and CRO respondents routinely refer to Good Publication Practice (GPP2) and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements. Most respondents (78% industry, 79% agency) received mandatory training on ethical publication practices. Over 90% of respondents' companies had publication guidelines or policies and required medical writing support to be acknowledged in publications (96% industry, 99% agency). Many industry respondents used publication management tools to monitor compliance with company guidelines and about half (46%) stated that their company had formal publication audits. Fewer agencies audited adherence to guidelines but 20% of agency respondents reported audits of employees and 6% audits of freelancers. Of concern, 37% of agency respondents reported requests from authors or sponsors that they believed were unethical, although 93% of these requests were withdrawn after respondents explained the need for compliance with guidelines. Most respondents' departments (63% industry, 58% agency, 60% CRO) had been involved in publishing studies with negative or inconclusive results. CONCLUSIONS: Within this sample, most publication professionals working in or for industry were aware of, and applying, major publication guidelines. However, the survey also identified specific areas where education and promotion of guidelines are needed to ensure ethical publication practices.


Subject(s)
Biomedical Research/standards , Drug Industry/standards , Guideline Adherence , Publications/standards , Publishing/standards , Biomedical Research/ethics , Drug Industry/ethics , Humans , Publications/ethics , Publishing/ethics , Surveys and Questionnaires
5.
Curr Med Res Opin ; 24(5): 1371-8, 2008 May.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-18384708

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Relationships between the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare professionals continue to drive discussion about the potential for conflicts of interest. Despite greater regulation and oversight, there are still calls for increased transparency and further restrictions on these relationships. Regulatory authorities, the pharmaceutical industry, professional societies, and other interested parties have responded by developing robust guidelines for interactions between the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare professionals. This, in turn, is driving change in the way that healthcare communications agencies work, increasing the need for them to visibly demonstrate processes that ensure their employees comply with relevant laws, regulations, and guidelines. EXPOSITION: In our group of healthcare communications agencies we have established an internal compliance program and developed a policy that reflects the services we provide, and we recommend that other agencies adopt a similar program. Compliance training, implemented by a nominated compliance team, can be enforced by including compulsory tests for employees who interact with the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare professionals, with annual reassessment. The compliance team also has an important role to play in ensuring ongoing communication and staff education, including awareness of new legal and best practice developments. Management of the compliance program is essential, with clear mechanisms for auditing and evaluation, and the inclusion of compliance adherence in staff performance objectives. A visible framework for handling potential compliance issues should also be developed, with clear definitions of different levels of noncompliance and potential associated consequences. Compliance programs may also include other elements, such as terminology and documentation guidance, so that the program becomes an integral tool used by employees on a daily basis. CONCLUSION: With a robust internal compliance program, healthcare communication agencies can play a significant role in helping maintain appropriate pharmaceutical industry-healthcare professional relationships in an increasingly regulated and scrutinized environment.


Subject(s)
Conflict of Interest , Delivery of Health Care/organization & administration , Drug Industry/organization & administration , Health Systems Agencies/organization & administration , Interdisciplinary Communication , Ethics, Institutional , Female , Guideline Adherence , Guidelines as Topic , Health Care Surveys , Humans , Interprofessional Relations , Male , Organizational Innovation , Policy Making , Program Development , Program Evaluation , Quality Assurance, Health Care , Sensitivity and Specificity , United Kingdom , United States
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...