ArticlePloS one2019
Association between commercial funding of Canadian patient groups and their views about funding of medicines: An observational study.
Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 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
13 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
- How are patient inputs considered in HTA? A thematic document analysis of NICE ultra-rare disease appraisals.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Information About Canadian Patient Groups' Conflicts of Interest and Industry Funding-Incomplete, Inconsistent, and Unreliable: A Cross-Sectional Study.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2025Article
- Interactions Between Pharmaceutical Companies and Patient Advocacy Groups in Japan: A Qualitative and Quantitative Interview Study.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
- Commercial influences on patient and public involvement: a renewed call for research and action.Health promotion international · 2024Article
- Article
- Disclosure of Pharmaceutical Industry Funding of Patient Organisations in Nordic Countries: Can Industry Self-Regulation Deliver on its Transparency Promise?International journal of health services : planning, administration, evaluation · 2022Article
- National patient groups in Canada and their disclosure of relationships with pharmaceutical companies: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Mapping conflict of interests: scoping review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2021Article
- Pharmaceutical industry payments and assisted reproduction in Australia: a retrospective observational study.BMJ open · 2021Observational
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatient groups represent the interest of their members when it comes to drug funding. Many patient groups receive grants from pharmaceutical companies that make products being considered for funding. This research examines whether there is an association between the positions that Canadian groups take about the products and conflicts of interest with the companies.
methodsThe Common Drug Review (CDR) and panCanadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) make recommendations to Canadian provincial and federal drug plans about funding particular drug-indications. Both utilize input from patient groups in making their recommendations. Patient group submissions are available from both organizations and these submissions contain statements about conflicts of interest. Views of the patient groups, with and without a conflict with the company making the drug under consideration and without any conflicts at all, were assessed and then compared with the recommendations from CDR and pCODR.
resultsThere was a total of 222 reports for drug-indications. There were 372 submissions from 93 different patient groups. Groups declared a total of 1896 conflicts with drug companies in 324 (87.1%) individual submissions. There were 268 submissions where groups declared a conflict with the company making the product or said they had no conflict. Irrespective of whether there was a conflict, the views of patient groups about the drug-indications under consideration were the same. There was no statistically significant difference between views of patient groups and the recommendations from CDR and/or pCODR.
conclusionsThe large majority of patient groups making submissions about funding of particular drug-indications had conflicts with the companies making the products and their views about the products were almost always positive. This association between funding and views needs to be further investigated to determine if a true cause and effect exists.
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.