ArticlePloS one2017
Perceived conflict of interest in health science partnerships.
Article in PloS one, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conflicts of Interest in Nutrition: Categorical Thinking and the Stigma of Commercial Collaboration.Current developments in nutrition · 2024Article
- Avoiding conflicts of interest and reputational risks associated with population research on food and nutrition: the Food Research risK (FoRK) guidance and toolkit for researchers.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Developing a research community within an online healthcare feedback platform.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2023Article
- Disclosing Conflicts of Interest to Potential Research Participants: Good for Nothing?Ethics & human research · 2023Article
- Open Science in regulatory environmental risk assessment.Integrated environmental assessment and management · 2021Article
- Opinion: Academic-humanitarian technology partnerships: an unhappy marriage?Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2021Article
- Bridging the Gap Between Science and Practice: Research Collaboration and the Perception of Research Findings.Frontiers in psychology · 2021Article
- Professionalism in Science: Competence, Autonomy, and Service.Science and engineering ethics · 2020Article
- Shotguns vs Lasers: Identifying barriers and facilitators to scaling-up plant molecular farming for high-value health products.PloS one · 2020Article
- When patient advocacy organizations meet industry: a novel approach to dealing with financial conflicts of interest.BMC medical ethics · 2019Article
- What principles should guide interactions between population health researchers and the food industry? Systematic scoping review of peer-reviewed and grey literature.Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity · 2019Article
- Research ethics in inter- and multi-disciplinary teams: Differences in disciplinary interpretations.PloS one · 2019Article
- Scientific risk communication about controversial issues influences public perceptions of scientists' political orientations and credibility.Royal Society open science · 2018Article
- Article
- Academia-industry digital health collaborations: A cross-cultural analysis of barriers and facilitators.Digital healthArticle
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
University scientists conducting research on topics of potential health concern often want to partner with a range of actors, including government entities, non-governmental organizations, and private enterprises. Such partnerships can provide access to needed resources, including funding. However, those who observe the results of such partnerships may judge those results based on who is involved. This set of studies seeks to assess how people perceive two hypothetical health science research collaborations. In doing so, it also tests the utility of using procedural justice concepts to assess perceptions of research legitimacy as a theoretical way to investigate conflict of interest perceptions. Findings show that including an industry collaborator has clear negative repercussions for how people see a research partnership and that these perceptions shape people's willingness to see the research as a legitimate source of knowledge. Additional research aimed at further communicating procedures that might mitigate the impact of industry collaboration is suggested.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.