ArticleHealthcare policy = Politiques de sante2013
Coalition Priorité Cancer and the pharmaceutical industry in Quebec: conflicts of interest in the reimbursement of expensive cancer drugs?
Article in Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Financial relationships between patient and consumer representatives and the health industry: A systematic review.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2020Pooled it
- Patient organizations involvement in healthcare: a rapid review and conceptual framework.Globalization and health · 2026Review
- A hidden web of policy influence: The pharmaceutical industry's engagement with UK's All-Party Parliamentary Groups.PloS one · 2021Article
- Article
- Exposing drug industry funding of UK patient organisations.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Association between commercial funding of Canadian patient groups and their views about funding of medicines: An observational study.PloS one · 2019Article
- Understanding the reasons for provincial discordance in cancer drug funding-a survey of policymakers.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2018Article
- The politicization of oncology drug funding reviews in Canada.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In the context of scarce public resources, patient interest groups have increasingly turned to private organizations for financing, including the pharmaceutical industry. This practice puts advocacy groups in a situation of potential conflicts between the interests of patients and those of the drug companies. The interests of patients and industry can converge on issues related to the approval and reimbursement of medications. But even on this issue, interests do not always align perfectly. Using the Quebec example of Coalition Priorité Cancer (CPC) as a case study, we examine the ethical issues raised by such financial relationships in the context of drug reimbursement decision-making. We collected, compiled and analyzed publicly available information on the CPC's organization and activities; this approach allowed us to raise and discuss important questions regarding the possible influence exerted on patient groups by donors. We conclude with some recommendations.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23968674PMC3999544What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.