Observational studyBMJ open2019
Changes in the type and amount of spending disclosed by Australian pharmaceutical companies: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Doctors' Conflict-of-Interest; What it Looks Like and What to do About it.International journal of social determinants of health and health services · 2026Article
- Article
- Comparing pharmaceutical company payments in the four UK countries: a cross-sectional and social network analysis.BMJ open · 2023Article
- International comparison of pharmaceutical industry payment disclosures in the UK and Japan: implications for self-regulation, public regulation, and transparency.Globalization and health · 2023Article
- Sponsorship of Australian and New Zealand medical societies by healthcare companies: an observational study.JRSM open · 2022Article
- Health Services and Policy Research in Canada: An Editor's Reflections.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2022Article
- Review
- Pharmaceutical industry payments and assisted reproduction in Australia: a retrospective observational study.BMJ open · 2021Observational
- Article
- Policing the promotion of prescription medicines - the new Medicines Australia Code of Conduct.Australian prescriber · 2021Article
- A comparison of educational events for physicians and nurses in Australia sponsored by opioid manufacturers.PloS one · 2021Article
- How Do Institutional Conflicts of Interest Between Pharmaceutical Companies and the Healthcare Sector Become Corrupt? A Case Study of Scholarship Donations Between Department of Clinical Anesthesiology, Mie University, and Ono Pharmaceutical in Japan.Frontiers in public health · 2021Article
- Mixed methods evaluation of workshops for citizen health advocates about financial conflicts of interests in healthcare.BMJ open · 2020Article
- "Asset exchange"-interactions between patient groups and pharmaceutical industry: Australian qualitative study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2019Article
- Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo describe and quantify disclosed payments from the pharmaceutical industry to the healthcare sector, and to examine the impact of the 2015 changes to Australia's self-regulated system of transparency.
designObservational database study.
settingAustralia.
participantsPublicly available reports submitted by members of Australian pharmaceutical industry trade organisations, Medicines Australia and the Generic and Biosimilar Medicines Association (GBMA) (October 2011-December 2017). EXPOSURE: Changes to transparency reporting requirements with the updates of pharmaceutical industry Codes of Conduct in 2015.
main outcome measuresElements of healthcare sector spending that members of industry organisations are required to publicly disclose; cumulative amount of disclosed spending (monthly average) in the year prior to and following the revision.
resultsThere was a 34.1% reduction in disclosed spending from Medicines Australia member companies in the year after the 2015 changes to the Code of Conduct were introduced ($A89 658 566 in the preceding year, October 2014-September 2015; $A59 052 551 in the following year). The new Code allowed for reduced reporting of spending on food and beverages at events and for sponsored healthcare professionals. However, there was enhanced transparency around identification of individual health professionals receiving payments. GBMA member reporting totalled $A2 580 402 in the year prior to the revision, then ceased.
conclusionsThis study shows the limitations of a self-regulatory system around industry disclosure of spending. We advocate for robust regulatory systems, such as legislation, to promote mandatory long-lasting public transparency.
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.